---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, November 29, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 235

                             Headlines

ACXIOM CORP: Awaits Finality of Settlement on Data Violation Suit
AIRGAS INC: Awaits Court Decision on Stockholder Class Suits
AMERICAN COMMERCIAL: Faces Merger-Related Suit in Delaware
AMERICAN COMMERCIAL: Collision-Related Class Suits Remain Stayed
APPLE INC: Sued in Calif. for Misrepresenting iPad 3G Data Plans

ARGO GROUP: Dismissal of PXRE Securities Suit Now Final
AT&T INC: Retiree Phone Concession Litigation Still Pending
AT&T INC: Appeal of Class Action Suit Dismissal Still Pending
AT&T INC: Unit Faces Universal Service Fees Litigation in Missouri
AT&T INC: Overtime Pay Suit Gains Class Action Status

BANCORPSOUTH INC: Class Action Lawsuit in Tennessee Still Pending
BEST BUY: Sued in California for Failing to Pay Proper Wages
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York
BLUE CROSS: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Hospital Charges
BLUELINX HOLDINGS: Says Cerberus-Related Suits Now Moot

BOWNE & CO: Still Negotiating Settlement on Consolidated Suit
BRISTOW GROUP: Continues to Defend Suit Over Helicopter Services
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Hausfeld to Appeal Junked Cartel Class Action
CF INDUSTRIES: Consolidated Shareholder Suit vs. Terra Dismissed
CF INDUSTRIES: Terra Industries Settles Iowa Shareholder Suit

CHARLES SCHWAB: Sued for Violations of Bus. & Prof. Code
CHEMTURA CORP: Final Conyers Settlement Hearing Set for January 25
CHEMTURA CORP: District Court OKs Federal Securities Suit Deal
COMPELLENT TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Minnesota Suits
CUB CADET: Recalls 200 Volunteer Utility Vehicles

DJO FINANCE: Continues to Defend Product Liability Lawsuits
DUKE ENERGY: Continues to Defend Katrina Suit
DUKE ENERGY: ERISA Suit in South Carolina Stayed
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Reaches Agreement in Trubion-Related Suits
FOCUS MEDIA: Plaintiffs' Appeal on NY Suit Dismissal Still Pending

FORTINET INC: Stockholder Suit in California Still Pending
GATEWAY INC: Sued for Selling Defective LX6810 Desktop Computers
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Sued in Pa. for Selling Defective Dishwashers
HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Jan. 20 Class Settlement Hearing Set
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Recalls More Tylenol Products Over Labeling

KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Agrees to Settle Chinese Drywall Class Suit
KNOLOGY INC: Proceedings in "Manard" Class Suit Remains Stayed
LADISH CO: Being Sold to Allegheny for Too Little, Suit Claims
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend Right-of-Way Suits
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend Securities Litigation

LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend ERISA Suit in Colorado
LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Settlement of Arizona Securities Suit Pending
LINCOLN EDUCATIONAL: Faces 2 Securities Class Suits in New Jersey
MEIJER: Recalls 6,700 Touch Point Oscillating Ceramic Heaters
MELA SCIENCES: Faces Securities Class Action

METROPCS COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend Securities Action
MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Reaches Settlement on ERISA Class Action
MOVE INC: Court Gives Final Approval of Ramirez Settlement
NATIONAL WESTERN: Makes $21.9-Mil. Settlement Payment in 3rd Qtr.
NATIONAL WESTERN: Deferred Annuities Class Action Suit Ongoing

NISSAN MOTOR: Recalls More Than 600,000 Vehicles
PANERA BREAD: Consolidated Class Action in Missouri Still Pending
PANERA BREAD: Continues to Defend Against "Sotoudeh" Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: Judge Certifies Class in Marlboro Lights Suit
PHUSION PROJECTS: Accused in California of Deceptive Advertising

PIONEER FOODS: Counsel Balks Against Price Collusion Class Suit
PITNEY-BOWES INC: Imagitas Seeks Dismissal of DriverSource Suits
PITNEY-BOWES INC: Faces Amended Complaint in Conn. Securities Suit
RAE SYSTEMS: Faces 10 Lawsuits Related to Battery Ventures Merger
REALPAGE INC: Continues to Defend "Minor" Suit in Texas

RES-CARE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Onex Transaction
SHORETEL INC: Court Okays $3 Million Settlement in "Watkins" Suit
SHORETEL INC: Approval of Settlement in "Berkovitz" Suit Pending
SKYWEST INC: Reaches MOU on Class Suits Over ExpressJet Merger
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Remains a Defendant in "Harkness" Litigation

SUPPORT.COM: Appeal on Settlement of IPO Suit Remains Pending
SUNTRUST BANKS: Anticipates Amended Complaint on Sec. 1031 Suit
SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend 2 Suits Over Overdraft Fees
SUNTRUST BANKS: Court Dismisses Investment Claims in ERISA Suit
SUNTRUST BANKS: Court Stays "Krinsk" Suit Pending Appeal

SUNTRUST BANKS: Faces Amended Complaint in Belmont Securities Suit
SUNTRUST BANKS: Court Dismisses WaterFord Securities Class Suit
SUNTRUST BANKS: Seeks Reconsideration to Dismiss Colonial Suit
TECO ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Gas Explosion
UNITED PARCEL: Settles "Hohider" Class Action

UNITED PARCEL: Barber Auto Sales Suit Still Pending in Alabama
UNITED PARCEL: Price-Fixing Suit Remains Pending in New York
WAL-MART STORES: High Court Class Action Decision Expected Today
WELLS FARGO: To Seek Appeal of Court Ruling on "Gutierrez" Suit
WELLS FARGO: Deed Back Property Taken Unlawfully, Says Suit

* Dodd-Frank Act May Spur Foreign Securities Class Actions



                             *********

ACXIOM CORP: Awaits Finality of Settlement on Data Violation Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Acxiom Corporation is awaiting any appeal of a settlement deal it
negotiated in a class suit over alleged violation of drivers'
license data, the Company disclosed in its November 5, 2010, Form
10-Q with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

Acxiom and several other information providers are named in a
putative class action lawsuit entitled Richard Fresco, et al. v.
R.L. Polk and Company and Acxiom Corporation, (U.S. Dist. Court,
S.D. Florida, 07-60695), formerly captioned as Linda Brooks and
Richard Fresco v. Auto Data Direct, Inc., et al., (U.S. Dist.
Court, S.D. Florida, 03-61063).  The lawsuit was removed to
federal court in May 2003.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants obtained and used
drivers' license data in violation of the federal Drivers Privacy
Protection Act.  To date, a class has not been certified.

Among other things, the plaintiffs seek injunctive relief,
statutory damages, and attorneys' fees.

Acxiom has agreed to settle the case and the court approved the
settlement on July 27, 2010.

The settlement has been appealed and the settlement will not be
final until all appeals are exhausted or the time for appeal has
run.

Acxiom has accrued $5.0 million for the settlement and ancillary
costs to obtain final approval and has paid $2.5 million of the
amount into an escrow fund established for the settlement, leaving
a remaining accrual of $2.5 million.

Two companion cases, Sharon Taylor, et al., v. Acxiom, et al.,
(U.S. District Court, E.D. Texas, 207CV001) and Sharon Taylor, et
al. v. Biometric Access Company, et al., (U.S. District Court,
E.D. Texas, 2:07-CV-00018), were filed in January 2007.  Both
Taylor cases were dismissed by the District Court and the
dismissal was upheld on appeal on July 14, 2010.  The Plaintiffs
are seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court.


AIRGAS INC: Awaits Court Decision on Stockholder Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Airgas, Inc., continues to await a court ruling on a shareholder
class litigation asserted against it in Delaware.

A number of purported stockholder class action lawsuits were
commenced against the Company and/or the members of the Airgas
Board in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  The lawsuits, which have
now been consolidated, allege, among other things, that the
members of the Airgas Board have failed to fulfill their fiduciary
duties by refusing to negotiate with Air Products, failing to seek
more valuable alternatives and failing to redeem the Company's
shareholder rights plan.

The plaintiffs seek equitable relief, as well as an award of
compensatory damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company and its directors believe that the claims made by the
stockholder plaintiffs are without merit and intend to defend
against them vigorously.

A five-day trial in the actions brought by Air Products and the
shareholder plaintiffs was held from October 4 to 8, 2010, and no
decision has been rendered, the Company disclosed in its
November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


AMERICAN COMMERCIAL: Faces Merger-Related Suit in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------
American Commercial Lines, Inc., is facing a class action lawsuit
in Delaware related to its merger with an affiliate of Platinum
Equity, LLC, according to the company's November 5, 2010, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On October 22, 2010, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against the company, its directors, Platinum Equity LLC, Parent
and Merger Sub in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.
The lawsuit is captioned Leonard Becker v. American Commercial
Lines, Inc. et. al.

Following the quarter, on October 18, 2010, ACL entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger to be acquired by an affiliate of
Platinum Equity, LLC.  Under the terms of the agreement, ACL
stockholders, other than GVI Holdings, Inc. and certain of its
affiliates, will receive $33.00 in cash, without interest, for
each share of ACL Common Stock they hold, less any applicable
withholding taxes. GVI Stockholders will be entitled to receive
$31.25 less any applicable withholding taxes in cash for each
share of ACL Common Stock they hold if the transaction closes
before December 31, 2010, and $33.00 per share less any applicable
withholding taxes in cash thereafter. GVI Stockholders entered
into a Voting Agreement to support the transaction.

In the lawsuit, plaintiff alleges generally that the company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
transaction by, among other things, carrying out a process that
inhibits maximization of shareholder value and the disclosure of
material information, and that Platinum Equity aided and abetted
the alleged breaches of duties.

Plaintiff purports to bring the lawsuit on behalf of the public
stockholders of the Company and seeks equitable relief to enjoin
consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger or rescissory
damages, and fees and costs, among other relief.


AMERICAN COMMERCIAL: Collision-Related Class Suits Remain Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits against American Commercial Lines, Inc.,
related to the collision incident at Mile Marker 97 of the
Mississippi River remain stayed, according to the company's
November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The company and American Commercial Lines LLC, an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of the company, have been named as defendants in
these putative class action lawsuits, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana:

     1. Austin Sicard et al on behalf of themselves and others
        similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc.,
        Whitefin Shipping Co. Limited, D.R.D. Towing Company,
        LLC, American Commercial Lines, Inc. and the New
        Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, Case
        No. 08-4012,  filed on July 24, 2008;

     2. Stephen Marshall Gabarick and Bernard Attridge, on
        behalf of themselves and others similarly situated vs.
        Laurin Maritime (America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co.
        Limited, D.R.D. Towing Company, LLC, American Commercial
        Lines, Inc. and the New Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship
        Pilots Association, Case No. 08-4007, filed on July 24,
        2008; and

     3. Alvin McBride, on behalf of himself and all others
        similarly situated v. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc.;
        Whitefin Shipping Co. Ltd.; D.R.D. Towing Co. LLC;
        American Commercial Lines Inc.; The New Orleans-Baton
        Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, Case No.
        09-cv-04494 B, filed on July 24, 2009.

The McBride v. Laurin Maritime, et al., action has been dismissed
with prejudice because it was not filed prior to the deadline set
by the Court.

The claims in the Class Action Lawsuits stem from the incident on
July 23, 2008, involving one of American Commercial LLC's tank
barges that was being towed by DRD Towing Company L.L.C., an
independent towing contractor.  The tank barge was involved in a
collision with the motor vessel Tintomara, operated by Laurin
Maritime, at Mile Marker 97 of the Mississippi River in the New
Orleans area.

The tank barge was carrying approximately 9,900 barrels of #6 oil,
of which approximately two-thirds was released.  The tank barge
was damaged in the collision and partially sunk.  There was no
damage to the towboat.  The Tintomara incurred minor damage.

The Class Action Lawsuits include various allegations of adverse
health and psychological damages, disruption of business
operations, destruction and loss of use of natural resources, and
seek unspecified economic, compensatory and punitive damages for
claims of negligence, trespass and nuisance.

The Class Action Lawsuits are stayed pending the outcome of the
Limitation Actions.  Limitation Actions refer to the two actions
filed by ACLLLC in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana seeking exoneration from or
limitation of liability relating to the collision incident as
provided for in Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Certain
Admiralty and Maritime Claims and in 46 U.S.C. sections 30501,
30505 and 30511. The Company has also filed a declaratory judgment
action against DRD seeking to have the contracts between them
declared "void ab initio". It is anticipated that trial will be
set in August of 2011. Discovery is set to begin soon.

Claims under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 were dismissed without
prejudice.  There is a separate administrative process for making
a claim under OPA 90 that must be followed prior to litigation.
The company is processing OPA 90 claims properly presented,
documented and recoverable.  The company has also received
numerous claims for personal injury, property damage and various
economic damages, including notification by the National Pollution
Funds Center of claims it has received. Additional lawsuits may be
filed and claims submitted.

The claims that remain for personal injury are by the three DRD
crew on the vessel at the time of the incident.  Two crew members
have agreed to a settlement of their claims to be paid from the
funds on deposit in an interpleader action.

The Company is in early discussions with the Natural Resource
Damage Assessment Group, consisting of various State and Federal
agencies, regarding the scope of environmental damage that may
have been caused by the incident.

Recently Buras Marina filed suit in the Eastern District of
Louisiana in Case No. 09-4464 against the Company seeking payment
for "rental cost" of its marina for cleanup operations.


APPLE INC: Sued in Calif. for Misrepresenting iPad 3G Data Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Apple promised that customers
who bought the iPad WiFi+3G could switch between limited data
plans and unlimited data plans at will, then discontinued the
unlimited plan just over 30 days after the product came out,
according to a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Friedman v. Apple, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-02403 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/23/AppleCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
          CASEY, GERRY, SCHENK, FRANCAVILLA, BLATT & PENFIELD LLP
          110 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1811
          E-mail: gmb@cglaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Ian Rott, Esq.
          David V. Hiden, Jr., Esq.
          Eric M. Overholt, Esq.
          HIDEN, ROTT & OERTLE, LLP
          2635 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 306
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 296-5884


ARGO GROUP: Dismissal of PXRE Securities Suit Now Final
-------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd., said in a Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2010, that the
dismissal of the class action filed by PXRE investors is now
final.

Between May 3, 2006 and June 16, 2006, several class action
lawsuits were filed against PXRE Group Ltd. (now Argo Group) and
certain former officers of PXRE on behalf of a putative class of
plaintiffs consisting of investors who purchased PXRE securities
traded on the NYSE under the ticker symbol "PXT" between Sept. 11,
2005 and February 22, 2006. These lawsuits were consolidated into
one proceeding before the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and were the subject of an Amended
Class Action Complaint filed on June 15, 2007.

The Amended Complaint alleges that during the purported class
period PXRE fraudulently understated the full impact of hurricanes
Katrina, Rita and Wilma on PXRE's business and that certain PXRE
executives made a series of materially false and misleading
statements or omissions about PXRE's business, prospects and
operations in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated under the 1934 Act.

On March 4, 2009, the Amended Complaint was dismissed with
prejudice by the District Court. On December 21, 2009, the
District Court's decision was affirmed on appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the class
plaintiff's petition for rehearing was denied by the Court of
Appeals on January 11, 2010. The District Court's dismissal of the
Class Action is now final and not subject to further review or
appeal.


AT&T INC: Retiree Phone Concession Litigation Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
In May 2005, AT&T, Inc., was served with a purported class action
captioned Stoffels v. SBC Communications Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the  Western District of Texas.

The plaintiffs, who are retirees of Pacific Bell Telephone
Company, Southwestern Bell and Ameritech, contend that the
telephone concession provided by the Company is, in essence, a
"defined benefit plan" within the meaning of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA).

In October 2006, the Court certified two classes.  The issue of
whether the concession is an ERISA pension plan was tried before
the judge in November 2007.

In May 2008, the court ruled that the concession was an ERISA
pension plan.  AT&T asked the court to certify this ruling for
interlocutory appeal, and in August 2008, the court denied its
request.

In May 2009, AT&T filed a motion for reconsideration with the
trial court.  That motion is pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 4,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


AT&T INC: Appeal of Class Action Suit Dismissal Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-four lawsuits were filed alleging that AT&T, Inc., and
other telecommunications carriers unlawfully provided assistance
to the National Security Agency in connection with intelligence
activities that were initiated following the events of Sept. 11,
2001.

In the first filed case, Hepting et al v. AT&T Corp., AT&T Inc.
and Does 1-20, a purported class action filed in U.S. District
Court in the Northern District of California, plaintiffs alleged
that the defendants disclosed and are currently disclosing to the
U.S. Government content and call records concerning communications
to which Plaintiffs were a party.

Plaintiffs sought damages, a declaratory judgment and injunctive
relief for violations of the First and Fourth Amendments to the
United States Constitution, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act (FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and other
federal and California statutes.

AT&T filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  The United States
asserted the "state secrets privilege" and related statutory
privileges and also filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the
complaint.  The Court denied the motions, and AT&T and the United
States appealed.

In August 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
remanded the case to the district court without deciding the issue
in light of the passage of the FISA Amendments Act, a provision of
which addresses the allegations in these pending lawsuits
(immunity provision).

The immunity provision requires the pending lawsuits to be
dismissed if the Attorney General certifies to the court either
that the alleged assistance was undertaken by court order,
certification, directive or written request or that the telecom
entity did not provide the alleged assistance.

In September 2008, the Attorney General filed his certification
and asked the district court to dismiss all of the lawsuits
pending against the AT&T Inc. telecommunications companies.

The court granted the Government's motion to dismiss and entered
final judgments in July 2009.

In addition, a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the immunity provision's
application on grounds that it is unconstitutional was filed.

In March 2009, AT&T and the Government filed motions to dismiss
this lawsuit.  The court granted the motion to dismiss and entered
final judgment in July 2009.  All cases brought against the AT&T
entities have been dismissed.

In August 2009, plaintiffs in all cases filed an appeal with the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and this appeal remains pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 4,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


AT&T INC: Unit Faces Universal Service Fees Litigation in Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------------
A unit of AT&T, Inc., has been sued in Missouri for alleged
violations of the Federal Communications Commission's rules,
according to the Company's November 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

On October 22, 2010, AT&T Inc.'s wireless subsidiary was served
with a purported class action in Circuit Court, Cole County,
Missouri (MBA Surety Agency, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC), in which
the plaintiffs contend that AT&T violated the FCC's rules by
collecting universal service fees on certain services not subject
to the fees, including internet access service provided over
wireless handsets commonly called "smartphones" and wireless data
cards, as well as collecting certain other state and local fees.

Plaintiffs define the class as all persons who from April 1, 2003,
until the present had a contractual relationship with AT&T for
internet access through a smartphone or a wireless data card.

Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages as well as
injunctive relief.


AT&T INC: Overtime Pay Suit Gains Class Action Status
-----------------------------------------------------
Ginny LaRoe, writing for The Recorder, reports a suit against AT&T
claiming hundreds of "field managers" were cheated out of overtime
pay has cleared a hurdle for gaining class action status and is on
the fast track to trial, the plaintiffs' firm says.

Last year, Sanford Wittels & Heisler filed a pair of actions in
San Francisco and Atlanta seeking combined damages of $1 billion.
The firm also is behind a third pending suit in Connecticut.

The suits claim the telecommunications company improperly
classified hundreds of employees as "field managers" to avoid
paying them overtime despite 50-, 60- or even 70-hour weeks.

San Francisco federal Judge Charles Breyer on Nov. 19 granted a
motion for conditional collective action certification and has
given the parties seven months to complete class and merits
discovery.

Judge Breyer is allowing potential class members 60 days from the
time they are notified to opt-in to the suit.  Sanford Wittels
says there are more than 1,300 AT&T employees in the state who are
or were employed at either company since December 2005 who may be
eligible to join the suit.

"Our Connecticut class action against AT&T's subsidiary SNET is
being teed up for trial in May 2010, and now our California case
is on the same fast track for trial," Jeremy Heisler, a partner in
the firm's New York office, said in a prepared statement.

AT&T is represented by Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker.  Lawyers
at the firm's San Francisco office did not immediately respond to
inquiries.


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Class Action Lawsuit in Tennessee Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit filed against Bancorpsouth, Inc.,
in Tennessee remains pending, according to the Company's Nov. 5,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

On May 12, 2010, the Company and its chief executive officer,
president and chief financial officer were named in a purported
class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of
the Company's common stock.

On September 17, 2010, an executive vice president of the Company
was added as a party to the lawsuit.  The amended complaint
alleges that the defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and financial results.

The plaintiff seeks class certification, an unspecified amount of
damages and awards of costs and attorneys' fees and other
equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper.  No class
has been certified and, at this stage of the lawsuit, management
cannot determine the probability of an unfavorable outcome to the
Company.


BEST BUY: Sued in California for Failing to Pay Proper Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Best Buy stiffs workers for
overtime and straight time and makes them work through breaks, a
class action claims in Superior Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Gover v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., et al.,
Case No. 1372600 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Barbara Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/23/BestBuy.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce N. Anticouni, Esq.
          Kristi D. Rothschild, Esq.
          ANTICOUNI & ASSOCIATES, APC
          23 East De La Guerra Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 962-0467


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Blackstone Group L.P. remains a defendant in a securities class
action lawsuit pending in New York, according to the company's
November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In the spring of 2008, six substantially identical complaints were
brought against Blackstone and some of its executive officers
purporting to be class actions on behalf of purchasers of common
units in Blackstone's June 2007 initial public offering.  These
suits were subsequently consolidated into one complaint filed in
the Southern District of New York in October 2008 against
Blackstone, Stephen A. Schwarzman (Blackstone's Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer), Peter G. Peterson (Blackstone's former Senior
Chairman), Hamilton E. James (Blackstone's President and Chief
Operating Officer) and Michael A. Puglisi (Blackstone's Chief
Financial Officer at the time of the IPO).  The amended complaint
alleged that:

   (1) the IPO prospectus was false and misleading for failing to
       disclose that (a) certain investments made by Blackstone's
       private equity funds were performing poorly at the time of
       the IPO and were materially impaired and (b) prior to the
       IPO the U.S. real estate market had started to deteriorate,
       adversely affecting the value of Blackstone's real estate
       investments; and

   (2) the financial statements in the IPO prospectus were
       materially inaccurate principally because they overstated
       the value of the investments.

In September 2009, the District Court judge dismissed the
complaint with prejudice, ruling that even if the allegations in
the complaint were assumed to be true, the alleged omissions were
immaterial.  The plaintiffs have appealed the District Court's
ruling.

Blackstone believes that the lawsuits are totally without merit
and intends to defend them vigorously.


BLUE CROSS: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Hospital Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Michigan and a slew of hospitals face a federal antitrust class
action over hospital charges, from named plaintiff Frankenmuth
Mutual Insurance.

A copy of the Complaint in Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance Company v.
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, et al., Case No. 10-cv-14633
(E.D. Mich.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/23/BlueCross.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Thompson, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          2000 Town Center, Suite 900
          Southfield, MI 48075-1100
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Lance Young, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LANCE C. YOUNG
          43311 Joy Road, Suite 244
          Canton, MI 48187
          Telephone: (734) 446-6932


BLUELINX HOLDINGS: Says Cerberus-Related Suits Now Moot
-------------------------------------------------------
Several putative shareholder class actions were filed in various
courts against BlueLinx Holdings Inc., its directors and Cerberus
ABP Investor LLC in connection with CAI's proposed tender offer
for the company's shares of stock, according to the company's
November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended October 2, 2010.

BlueLinx, its directors, and Cerberus ABP Investor LLC were named
as defendants in putative shareholder class actions filed in the
Superior Courts of Fulton and Cobb Counties, Georgia, the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, the
Chancery Court for the State of Delaware, and the Supreme Court of
the State of New York in connection with the proposed tender
offer announced by CAI on July 21, 2010, and commenced by CAI on
August 2, 2010.

The actions are captioned: Habiniak, et al. v. Cohen, et al.,
Fulton County Superior Court, Georgia, filed July 23, 2010;
Hindermann, et al. v. BlueLinx Holdings Inc., et al., Cobb County
Superior Court, Georgia, filed July 27, 2010; Jerszynski v.
BlueLinx Holdings, Inc., et al., Cobb County Superior Court,
Georgia, filed August 3, 2010; Winter v. Cerberus ABP Investor
LLC, Cobb County Superior Court, Georgia; Stadium Capital
Qualified Partners, L.P. v. Cerberus ABP Investor LLC, et al.,
Delaware Chancery Court; Habiniak v. Cohen, et al., Delaware
Chancery Court; Liang v. Cohen, et al., Delaware Chancery Court;
Kajaria v. Cohen, et al., United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia; and Cenzone v. Judd, et al., Supreme
Court of New York.

Certain complaints also name Cerberus Capital Management L.P. as a
defendant.  The complaints seek to enjoin the proposed tender
offer, alleging that the Company's directors and CAI breached
their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to make
certain disclosures and maximize the value to be received by
BlueLinx shareholders.

The complaints also assert claims of aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty.  In addition to an order enjoining the
transaction, the complaints variously seek, among other things:
additional disclosures regarding the proposed transaction;
imposition of a constructive trust in favor of plaintiffs for any
improper benefits received by defendants; rescission of the
transaction, if consummated, or an award to plaintiffs of
rescissory damages; and attorneys' fees and expenses.

In light of the expiration of the tender offer, the company
believes that these complaints are now moot.


BOWNE & CO: Still Negotiating Settlement on Consolidated Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bowne & Co., Inc., has yet to enter into definitive settlement
documents to resolve a consolidated lawsuit relating to its merger
with R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company, according to the company's
November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The Company, members of its board of directors and management,
R.R. Donnelley and Snoopy Acquisition, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of R.R. Donnelley and also referred to as Merger Sub,
have been named as defendants in four purported class action
lawsuits brought in the Supreme Court of the State of New York and
consolidated under the caption and index number Sartoretti v.
Bowne & Co., Inc., et al., Index No. 600531/2010.

The consolidated complaint filed on April 12, 2010, alleges breach
of fiduciary duty by the directors and officers in connection with
the acquisition contemplated by the merger agreement, and asserts
aiding and abetting claims against the Company, R.R. Donnelly and
Merger Sub.

On April 21, 2010, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding, which contemplates, subject to completion of
definitive settlement documents and court approval, a settlement
of the consolidated cases.  The Company has accrued $550,000 as of
September 30, 2010, related to the estimated settlement costs.


BRISTOW GROUP: Continues to Defend Suit Over Helicopter Services
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bristow Group, Inc., defends a complaint asserted against it on
alleged improper increase in the price of certain helicopter
services, the Company disclosed in its November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On June 12, 2009, Superior Offshore International, Inc. v. Bristow
Group Inc., et al, Case No. 1:09-cv-00438, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware.

The purported class action complaint, which also named other
providers of offshore helicopter services in the Gulf of Mexico as
defendants, alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Among other things, the complaint alleged that the defendants
unlawfully conspired to raise and maintain the price of offshore
helicopter services between January 1, 2001, and December 31,
2005.

The plaintiff was seeking to represent a purported class of direct
purchasers of offshore helicopter services and was asking for,
among other things, unspecified treble monetary damages and
injunctive relief.

In September 2010, the court granted the Company's and the other
defendants' motion to dismiss the case on several grounds.

The plaintiff has since filed a motion seeking a rehearing and
seeking leave to amend its original complaint.

The Company says it is currently unable to determine whether the
class suit could have a material affect on its business, financial
condition and results of operations.


BRITISH AIRWAYS: Hausfeld to Appeal Junked Cartel Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Lawyer reports Hausfeld will seek leave to appeal the Court of
Appeal decision to dismiss a bid to bring a representative class
action through the High Court.

The ruling, given by Lord Justice Mummery on November 19, struck a
blow to the class action movement and left many claimant lawyers
wondering how consumer clients who are victims of cargo
conspiracies will get access to justice.

Mummery LJ was scathing in his view of the claim, which he threw
out for being "fatally flawed".  As one lawyer close to case
summed up succinctly: "They got stuffed."

The claim was originally launched by Hausfeld against British
Airways (BA) in September 2008.  The firm sought damages for
clients who had suffered a loss a result of a airfreight services
cartel which the airline participated in.

Earlier this month BA was fined GBP90 milion by the European
Commission for its involvement in the cartel, bringing to an end a
three-year investigation into BA.

In a bid to have the cases being brought by the firm's 250 clients
heard in a cost effective manner, the firm attempted to bring a
representative action in the High Court.

Hausfeld put forward two clients, Emerald Supplies and Southern
Glass House Produce (both suppliers of cut flowers), to act as
representatives of all "direct and indirect purchasers of
airfreight services, the prices for which were inflated by the
agreements or concerted practices", in essence seeking to extend
the number of potential claimants to an almost limitless number.

Giving his first instance ruling and rejecting the case, the
chancellor of the High Court Sir Andrew Morritt said: "It's not
that the class consists of a fluctuating body of persons, but that
the criteria for inclusion in the class cannot be satisfied at the
time the action is brought because they depend on the action
succeeding."

At the Court of Appeal, 20 Essex Street's Iain Milligan QC,
instructed by Hausfeld partner Anthony Maton, argued that the
representative action rule had become broader and more flexible
and therefore the court had the power to determine the shape of
the action.

Mr. Milligan said Chancellor Morritt's ruling should be reversed
because the case was for a class of more than one person who
shared the same interest "at the relevant time".

It did not follow, he said, that the claimants represented had to
be the same at the start of the action and at the point of
judgment and in the period between those two points of time.

In his ruling, Mummery LJ dismissed the argument with little
consideration because, he said, the case fell outside the CPR
rules.

The CoA judge stated: "After all the applications, arguments,
authorities, amendments and adjournments, it is a straightforward
Bear Garden kind of case that falls outside the rule on
representative actions.

"Emerald and those they purport to represent do not all have "the
same interest" required by the rule.  The persons represented are
not defined in the pleadings, either initially or in the proposed
amendments, with a sufficient degree of certainty to constitute a
class of persons with "the same interest" capable of being
represented by Emerald."

If the Supreme Court rejects the appeal bid Hausfeld will be left
with 250 clients representing $3 billion of freight spend, all
looking for compensation.

Mr. Maton said: "Everybody has said that this was about class
actions, but that was not what we were looking to do.  We were
seeking to find a way to manage these cases."  The judiciary has
shown a hostile attitude towards those attempting to change the
class action model through the courts.  That will not stop lawyers
from trying, however.  Hausfeld's clients are relying on it and,
consequently, so is the firm.


CF INDUSTRIES: Consolidated Shareholder Suit vs. Terra Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
CF Industries Holdings, Inc., disclosed that no appeal has yet
been filed from the dismissal of a consolidated shareholder action
in Maryland against Terra Industries, according to the company's
November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On April 5, 2010, CF Industries Holdings, Inc., acquired a
controlling interest in Terra Industries.  On April 15, 2010,
pursuant to the March 12, 2010, Agreement and Plan of Merger,
Composite Merger Corporation, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary
of the company, merged with and into Terra, with Terra continuing
as the surviving corporation and becoming an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of the company.  Accordingly, the results of Terra are
included in CF Industries Holdings' consolidated financial
statements since April 5, 2010.

Purported shareholders of Terra commenced putative class actions
against Terra and its directors in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City, Maryland.  The Maryland court consolidated these into a
single action, In re Terra Industries, Inc., Shareholder
Litigation.

On March 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated putative
class action complaint, as well as a motion for partial summary
judgment as to liability.  The consolidated complaint generally
alleges that the director defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by, among other things, approving the merger agreement with
Yara International ASA without engaging in an adequate process to
determine that such agreement was the best available transaction.

The complaint seeks monetary damages based on the $123 million
termination fee that CF Industries paid to Yara, on Terra's
behalf, in connection with the termination by Terra of the Yara
merger agreement.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative,
for summary judgment, as well as an opposition to the plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment.

On July 14, 2010, the Maryland Court denied the plaintiffs' motion
for partial summary judgment and granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss.  The case remains open to allow counsel for the
plaintiffs to file an application for attorneys' fees, and to
allow the plaintiffs to file an appeal.

Plaintiffs' counsel subsequently agreed to a settlement in
connection with their fee application, the Court dismissed the
case with prejudice on Sept. 27, 2010.  No plaintiff filed an
appeal.


CF INDUSTRIES: Terra Industries Settles Iowa Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terra Industries, Inc., entered into a settlement agreement with
plaintiffs in a shareholder class action litigation against it
currently pending in the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County,
according to CF Industries Holdings, Inc.'s November 5, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On April 5, 2010, CF Industries Holdings, Inc., acquired a
controlling interest in Terra Industries.  On April 15, 2010,
pursuant to the March 12, 2010 Agreement and Plan of Merger,
Composite Merger Corporation, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary
of the company, merged with and into Terra, with Terra continuing
as the surviving corporation and becoming an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of the company.  Accordingly, the results of Terra are
included in CF Industries Holdings' consolidated financial
statements since April 5, 2010.

Purported Terra shareholders filed a putative shareholder class
action, captioned In re Terra Industries, Inc., Shareholder
Litigation, in the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County.  The
plaintiffs filed a consolidated putative class action complaint
against Terra and its directors on April 14, 2010.  The
consolidated complaint in Iowa generally alleges that the director
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
approving the Yara International ASA merger agreement without
engaging in an adequate process to determine that such agreement
was the best available transaction.  The complaint seeks monetary
damages based on the $123 million termination fee that CF
Industries paid to Yara, on Terra's behalf, in connection with the
termination by Terra of the Yara merger agreement.

On July 23, 2010, the defendants moved to dismiss in light of the
decision by the Circuit Court for Baltimore, Maryland, dismissing
the virtually identical action in Maryland.

Although the company continues to believe that the lawsuit was
without merit, in order to eliminate the burden and expense of
further litigation, the company reached a settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs to settle this action.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Sued for Violations of Bus. & Prof. Code
--------------------------------------------------------
Garfield Peate, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc., et al, Case No.
10-cv-05267 (N.D. Calif. November 19, 2010), brings claims for
violations of the Business and Professions Code Section 17200 on
behalf of all Colorado residents who held shares of the Schwab
YieldPlus Fund as of September 1, 2006.  Mr. Peate, who began
purchasing Fund shares in mid-2005, relates he suffered
significant damages as a result of defendants' unlawful conduct
when the Fund's NAV later declined beginning in late 2007.

On March 30, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup granted
partial summary judgment in favor of a class of California Fund
investors asserting identical Section 17200 claims, finding that
the defendants violated Section 13(a) of the Investment Company
Act.  The case in In Re Charles Schwab Corp. Sec. Litig., No.
C 08-01510.  After the parties to the action agreed reached a
preliminary $35 million settlement of the California class's
claims, on October 14, 2010, Judge Alsup further ruled that under
the limited settlement agreement investors "who are not California
residents are free to bring another fresh case under Section
17200."  Hence, Mr. Peate filed his Section 17200 action.

The Schwab YieldPlus Fund is an open-ended mutual fund organized
as a Massachusetts business trust registered under the ICA.
Defendants positioned the Fund as a purportedly safe alternative
to money market funds but with a higher yield, designed to invest
primarily in investment grade bonds with a duration of one year or
less.

Defendant Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc., the asset
management arm of The Charles Schwab Corporation, oversaw the
asset management and administration of the YieldPlus Fund.
Defendant Schwab Investments, a Massachusetts Business Trust, is
the issuer of Fund shares, and performed trust services for the
Fund.  The YieldPlus Fund is a series of the Trust.  Defendant
Charles Schwab & Co. is the parent company of Schwab Investments.
Pursuant to a Distribution Agreement, Charles Schwab & Co. was,
during the relevant time period, the principal underwriter and
distributor for shares of the Fund and was Schwab Investments;
agent for the purpose of the continuous offering of the Fund's
shares.  Defendants are all under the common control of The
Charles Schwab Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          Mark Punzalam, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          100 Bush Street, Suite 1450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 398-8700
          E-mail: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com
                  mpunzalan@finkelsteinthompson.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Dyer III, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
          DYER & BERENS LLP
          303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 861-1764
          E-mail: bob@dyerberens.com
                  jeff@dyerberens.com


CHEMTURA CORP: Final Conyers Settlement Hearing Set for January 25
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corporation said in a Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 5, 2010, that the final approval hearing of
the settlement of the Conyers Fire class action lawsuit is
scheduled for January 25, 2010.

The Company and certain of its former officers and employees were
named as defendants in five putative state class action lawsuits
filed in three counties in Georgia and one putative class action
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia pertaining to the fire at the Company's
Conyers, Georgia warehouse on May 25, 2004.  Of the five putative
state class actions, two were voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiffs, leaving three such lawsuits, all of which are now
pending in the Superior Court of Rockdale County, Georgia.  These
remaining state court putative class action lawsuits are captioned
James and Carla Brown v. Bio-Lab, Inc., et al., Don Chapman et al.
v. Bio-Lab, Inc., et al. and Deborah Davis, et al. v. Bio-Lab,
Inc., et al.  The federal court putative class action lawsuit is
captioned Bill Martin, et al. v. Bio-Lab, Inc., et al.

These remaining putative state class actions, as well as the
putative class action pending in federal district court, seek
recovery for economic and non-economic damages allegedly arising
from the fire.  Punitive damages are sought in the Davis case in
Rockdale County, Georgia and in the Martin case in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  The
Martin case also seeks a declaratory judgment to reform certain
settlements, as well as medical monitoring and injunctive relief.

The Company was also named as a defendant in fifteen lawsuits
filed by individual or multi-party plaintiffs in the Georgia and
Federal courts pertaining to the May 25, 2004 fire at its Conyers,
Georgia warehouse.  Eight of these lawsuits remain, the most
significant of which is captioned Billy R. Brown, et al. v. Bio-
Lab, Inc., et al., is pending in the Superior Court of Rockdale
County, and involves claims by approximately 2,000 plaintiffs.

As part of the Chapter 11 cases, over 2,000 proofs of claim
relating to the lawsuits were timely filed.  On August 25, 2010,
the Debtors and Deborah Davis, as representative of a proposed
Settlement Class, entered into a Class Action Settlement Agreement
which proposed settlement will resolve all of the pending actions.
The Settlement Agreement defines the proposed Settlement Class as
consisting of all persons who resided, were located, were present,
were working or scheduled to work, or owned property or a place of
business within a defined area near the Conyers Fire location on
May 25 or May 26, 2004, as well as all persons who have been
plaintiffs in the above lawsuits.  The Settlement Agreement
provides for a settlement fund of $7 million to be paid out to
Settlement Class members on a claim-by-claim basis pursuant to
certain procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement,
including the providing of notice to each proposed member of the
Settlement Class, the filing of a claim by each claimant with a
claims administrator, and the determination by the claims
administrator of the amount payable to each claimant in accordance
with the predetermined distribution formula set forth in the
Settlement Agreement.  In addition, each member of the proposed
Settlement Class has the right to opt out of the Settlement Class.

By order dated September 10, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court approved
the Debtors' entry into the Class Action Settlement Agreement, and
preliminarily approved the class action settlement subject to a
final approval hearing to be held on January 25, 2011, at which
hearing the Bankruptcy Court will determine whether the settlement
is fair, adequate and reasonable.

As a result, as of September 30, 2010, the Company has established
a reserve of $7 million included in liabilities subject to
compromise.  The Company believes that its general liability
insurance policies will adequately cover any third-party claims
and legal and processing fees in excess of the amounts that were
recorded through September 30, 2010.  The Company has also
recorded a receivable in the amount of $7 million as of Sept. 30,
2010.


CHEMTURA CORP: District Court OKs Federal Securities Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corporation said in a Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 5, 2010, that a district court has approved
a settlement of a federal securities class action.

The Company, certain of its former officers and directors and
certain former directors of the Company's predecessor Witco Corp.
are defendants in a consolidated class action lawsuit, filed on
July 20, 2004, in the United States District Court, District of
Connecticut brought by plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a
class consisting of all purchasers or acquirers of the Company's
stock between October 1998 and October 2002.

The consolidated amended complaint principally alleges that the
Company and the Crompton Individual Defendants caused the Company
to issue false and misleading statements that violated the federal
securities laws by reporting inflated financial results resulting
from an alleged illegal, undisclosed price-fixing conspiracy.  The
putative class includes former Witco Corp. shareholders who
acquired their securities in the Crompton-Witco merger pursuant to
a registration statement that allegedly contained misstated
financial results.  The complaint asserts claims against the
Company and the Crompton Individual Defendants under Section 11 of
the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Plaintiffs also assert claims for control person liability under
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Crompton Individual
Defendants. The complaint also asserts claims for breach of
fiduciary duty against certain former directors of Witco Corp. for
actions they allegedly took as Witco Corp. directors in connection
with the Crompton-Witco merger. The plaintiffs seek, among other
things, unspecified damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

The Company and the Crompton Individual Defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint on September 17, 2004 and the former
directors of Witco Corp. filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
in February 2005.  On November 28, 2008, the parties signed a
settlement agreement.  The Federal District Court granted
preliminary approval of the November 2008 Settlement Agreement
on December 12, 2008 and scheduled a June 12, 2009 final approval
hearing which hearing was subsequently rescheduled for Nov. 11,
2009.  The November 2008 Settlement Agreement provided for payment
by or on behalf of defendants of $21 million.

On September 17, 2009, the Federal District Court entered an order
cancelling the final approval hearing of the November 2008
Settlement Agreement due to the automatic stay resulting from
Chapter 11 cases.  The Federal District Court also denied on
December 31, 2009, the motions to dismiss the complaint filed by
the Company, the Crompton Individual Defendants and the former
directors of Witco Corp.  The motions to dismiss were denied
without prejudice to renew following resolution of the Chapter 11
cases.  In October 2009, the Bankruptcy Court issued an Order
authorizing the Company to enter into a settlement stipulation
requiring the return of $9 million that the Company transferred to
the plaintiffs prior to its Chapter 11 filing in connection with
the November 2008 Settlement Agreement.  The Company entered into
such settlement stipulation and $9 million was returned to the
Company.

On April 13, 2010, the parties entered into an amended settlement
agreement whereby the plaintiffs agreed to accept a total of
approximately $11 million to be paid by the Company's insurer in
full satisfaction of the Company's obligations pursuant to the
settlement and amended settlement agreements.  This matter will be
resolved as a settlement class action.  The settlement was subject
to the approval of both the Federal District Court and the
Bankruptcy Court.  On May 4, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court approved
the settlement of the class action, and on August 17, 2010, the
Federal District Court approved the settlement of the class
action.


COMPELLENT TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Minnesota Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Compellent Technologies, Inc., relates that two purported
securities class actions against it and its officers remain
pending in Minnesota, according to the company's November 5, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On April 14 and 15, 2010, respectively, two purported securities
class actions were commenced in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota, naming the company and certain of its
executive officers as defendants.  The lawsuits allege that the
defendants made materially false or misleading public statements
about the company's business and prospects in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of investors who
purchased the company's common stock between October 28, 2009 and
April 7, 2010.  On September 30, 2010, the company moved to
dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint.

The company believes that the allegations are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend against them.


CUB CADET: Recalls 200 Volunteer Utility Vehicles
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
MTD Consumer Group Inc., of Cleveland, Ohio, announced a voluntary
recall of about 200 Cub Cadet Volunteer utility vehicles.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The front lower ball joint can detach and cause a loss of steering
control.  This poses a crash hazard for consumers.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves four-wheel drive Cub Cadet Volunteer
gasoline-powered utility vehicle.  Model numbers included in the
recall are 37BB475H710, 37BC465D710, 37BC466D710, 37BK466D710,
37BK46GD710, 37BM466D710, 37BM467D710 and 37BM46GD710.  The serial
number range is 1C290Z50001 through 1D280Z50007.  Serial numbers
included in the recall have a "C" or "D" in the second position
and a "0" as the fifth digit.  Model and serial numbers are
printed on a plate located under the driver's seat. "Cub Cadet" is
printed on the hood.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11710.html

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
through Cub Cadet dealers nationwide from April 2010 through
September 2010 for between $6,800 and $9,800.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled vehicles and
contact their local Cub Cadet dealer to schedule a free repair.
Cub Cadet is contacting all known consumers.  For more
information, contact Cub Cadet toll-free at (888) 848-6038 between
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.cubcadet.com/


DJO FINANCE: Continues to Defend Product Liability Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
DJO Finance LLC remains a defendant in various product liability
lawsuits, according to the company's November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended October 2, 2010.

The Company is currently named as one of several defendants in
approximately 100 product liability cases, including a lawsuit in
Canada seeking class action status, related to a disposable drug
infusion pump product (pain pump) manufactured by two third party
manufacturers that the Company distributed through its Bracing and
Supports segment.

The Company discontinued its sale of these products in the second
quarter of 2009.  These cases have been brought against the
manufacturers and certain distributors of these pumps, and in some
cases, the manufacturers of the anesthetics used in these pumps.
All of these lawsuits allege that the use of these pumps with
certain anesthetics in certain shoulder surgeries over prolonged
periods have resulted in cartilage damage to the plaintiffs.

The Company has sought indemnity and tendered the defense of these
cases to the two manufacturers who supplied these pumps to it, to
their products liability carriers and to the Company's products
liability carriers.  These lawsuits are about equally divided
between the two manufacturers.  Both manufacturers have rejected
the Company's tenders of indemnity.

Until early 2010, the base policy for one of the manufacturers was
paying for the Company's defense, but that policy has been
exhausted by defense costs of the Company and the manufacturer and
by settlements, and a second policy has been significantly eroded
by defense costs of the Company and the manufacturer and is
expected to be exhausted by settlements in the near future.  This
manufacturer has ceased operations, has little assets and no
additional insurance coverage.

The Company has asserted indemnification rights against the
successor to this manufacturer and intends to pursue its claims
appropriately.  The base policy for the other manufacturer has
been exhausted and the excess liability carriers for that
manufacturer have not accepted coverage for the Company and are
not expected to provide for its defense.  The Company and this
manufacturer have been cooperating in jointly negotiating
settlements of those lawsuits in which both parties are named.

The Company's products liability carriers have accepted coverage
of these cases, subject to a reservation of the right to deny
coverage for customary matters, including punitive damages and
off-label promotion.

In August 2010, one of the Company's excess carriers for the
period ending July 1, 2010 and for the supplemental extended
reporting period (SERP), which is insuring $10 million in excess
of $25 million, informed the Company that it has reserved its
right to rescind the policy based on an alleged failure by the
Company and its insurance broker to disclose material information.
The Company disagrees with this allegation and is seeking to
resolve the issue with this carrier.  The lawsuits allege damages
ranging from unspecified amounts to claims between $1 million and
$10 million.

The Company said it could be exposed to material liabilities if
its insurance coverage is not available or inadequate and the
resources of the two manufacturers, including their respective
products liability insurance policies, are unavailable or
insufficient to pay the defense costs and settlements or judgments
in these cases.


DUKE ENERGY: Continues to Defend Katrina Suit
---------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation and Cinergy Corp. are preparing their
response to a writ of mandamus filed with the Supreme Court,
according to the company's November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

In April 2006, Duke Energy Corporation and Cinergy Corp. were
named in the third amended complaint of a purported class action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Mississippi.  Plaintiffs, for and on behalf of a putative class
of all residents of Mississippi, claim that Duke Energy and
Cinergy, along with numerous other utilities, oil companies, coal
companies and chemical companies, are liable for unquantified
compensatory and punitive damages relating to losses suffered by
victims of Hurricane Katrina.  Plaintiffs claim that defendants'
greenhouse gas emissions contributed to the frequency and
intensity of storms such as Hurricane Katrina.

On Aug. 30, 2007, the court dismissed the case and plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal.  In Oct. 2009, the Court of Appeals
issued an opinion reversing the district court and reinstating the
lawsuit.  Defendants filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which
was granted.

The Court of Appeals granted defendants' petition for rehearing en
banc and a hearing was set, but subsequently taken off the
calendar when an additional judge recused herself, leaving the
court without a quorum.

On May 28, 2010, after briefing on the issue, the court held it
could not proceed with rehearing en banc, the original 5th Circuit
opinion was properly vacated and the court can no longer reinstate
it.  As a result, the district court's decision dismissing the
case was reinstated and is now the controlling decision in the
case.

On Aug. 26, 2010, plaintiffs filed a petition for a Writ of
Mandamus asking the Supreme Court to either reinstate the panel's
decision or to hold in abeyance its action dismissing the appeal.
Defendants are currently preparing their response.

In its SEC filing, Duke Energy says it cannot predict with
certainty whether it will incur any liability or to estimate the
damages, if any, that it might incur in connection with the
matter.


DUKE ENERGY: ERISA Suit in South Carolina Stayed
------------------------------------------------
A federal court in South Carolina stayed all pending motions in
the lawsuit alleging ERISA violation against Duke Energy
Corporation and the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan,
according to the company's November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

A class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in South
Carolina against Duke Energy Corporation and the Duke Energy
Retirement Cash Balance Plan, alleging violations of Employee
Retirement Income Security Act and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act.  These allegations arise out of the conversion of
the Duke Energy Company Employees' Retirement Plan into the Duke
Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan.

The case also raises some Plan administration issues, alleging
errors in the application of Plan provisions (i.e., the
calculation of interest rate credits in 1997 and 1998 and the
calculation of lump-sum distributions).  Six causes of action were
alleged, ranging from age discrimination, to various alleged ERISA
violations, to allegations of breach of fiduciary duty.

Plaintiffs sought a broad array of remedies, including a
retroactive reformation of the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance
Plan and a recalculation of participants'/beneficiaries' benefits
under the revised and reformed plan.  Duke Energy filed its answer
in March 2006.

A portion of this contingent liability was assigned to Spectra
Energy in connection with the spin-off in January 2007.  A hearing
on the plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to add an
additional age discrimination claim, defendant's motion to dismiss
and the respective motions for summary judgment was held in
December 2007.

On June 2, 2008, the court issued its ruling denying plaintiffs'
motion to add the additional claim and dismissing a number of
plaintiffs' claims, including the claims for ERISA age
discrimination.  Since that date, plaintiffs have notified Duke
Energy that they are withdrawing their ADEA claim.

On Sept. 4, 2009, the court issued its order certifying classes
for three of the remaining claims but not certifying their claims
as to plaintiffs' fiduciary duty claims.  At an unsuccessful
mediation in Sept. 2008, Plaintiffs quantified their claims as
being in excess of $150 million.

After mediation on Sept. 21, 2010, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit, subject to execution
of a definitive settlement agreement, notice to the class members
and approval of the settlement by the Court.

In the third quarter of 2010, Duke Energy recorded a provision
related to the settlement agreement.  On October 12, 2010, the
Court issued an order staying all pending motions in the case.


EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Reaches Agreement in Trubion-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emergent Biosolutions, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its
settlement of class action lawsuits related to Trubion
Pharmaceuticals Acquisition, according to the company's Nov. 5,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On August 17, 2010, two class action lawsuits were filed in the
Superior Court of Washington, King County, or State Court, against
Trubion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Trubion, its board of directors,
and the Company, or collectively, the Defendants, alleging in
summary that, in connection with the proposed merger of Trubion
with a subsidiary of the Company, or the Acquisition, the members
of the Trubion board of directors breached their fiduciary duties
by conducting an unfair sale process and agreeing to an unfair
price.  Both complaints also claim that Trubion and the Company
aided and abetted the Trubion board of directors in its breach of
fiduciary duties.

On September 9, 2010, the actions were consolidated into a single
action, or State Action.  On October 1, 2010, the plaintiffs in
the State Action served on the Defendants a consolidated amended
class action complaint, or Amended Complaint, alleging, among
other things and in addition to the matters alleged in the initial
complaints, that the Defendants omitted material information from
the Proxy Statement/Prospectus.

On October 4, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington against the
Defendants, which makes allegations related to the Acquisition
that are substantially similar to those matters alleged in the
Amended Complaint, includes additional allegations regarding
purported violations of the federal securities laws and seeks
substantially similar relief.

On October 8, 2010, the Defendants reached agreement in principle
with the plaintiffs in the Actions regarding the settlement of the
Actions.  In connection with the settlement contemplated by that
agreement in principle, the Actions will be stayed pending
approval of the settlement of the State Action by the State Court.
Thereafter, the State Action and all claims asserted therein will
be dismissed with prejudice and counsel for the plaintiff in the
Federal Action will take all necessary steps to dismiss the
Federal Action and all claims asserted therein with prejudice.

The terms of the settlement contemplated by that agreement in
principle require that Trubion and the Company to make certain
additional disclosures related to the Acquisition. The parties
also agreed that the plaintiffs in the Actions may seek attorneys'
fees and costs in an aggregate amount up to $475,000, to be paid
by Trubion if such fees and costs are approved by the State Court.
There will be no other payment by Trubion, any of the members of
the Trubion board of directors or the Company to the plaintiffs or
their respective counsels in connection with the settlement and
dismissal of the Actions.

The agreement in principle further contemplates that the parties
will enter into a stipulation of settlement, which will be subject
to customary conditions, including State Court approval following
notice to Trubion's shareholders.  In the event that the parties
enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be
scheduled at which the State Court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement.

The Company said there can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the State
Court will approve any proposed settlement, or that any eventual
settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated by
the agreement in principle.


FOCUS MEDIA: Plaintiffs' Appeal on NY Suit Dismissal Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal of the judgment granting Focus Media Holding Limited's
motion to dismiss the consolidated case In re Focus Media Holding
Limited Litigation remains pending, according to the company's
November 5, 2010, Form 20-F/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009.

On Nov. 27, 2007, Eastriver Partners, Inc., filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the company and the underwriters of
its follow-on offering of November 2007.

On Dec. 21, 2007, Scott Bauer filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the company, certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters of the company's follow-on
offering of November 2007.

Both complaints allege that the company's registration statement
on Form F-1 on Nov. 1, 2007, as amended, and the related
prospectus contained inaccurate statements of material fact.

On April 24, 2008, the court consolidated the Eastriver Partners,
Inc. and Scott Bauer actions into an action captioned In re Focus
Media Holding Limited Litigation and named Iron Workers Local No.
25 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff in the consolidated action.

On June 23, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint.  Specifically, the complaints allege that the company
failed to disclose reduced gross margins in the company's Internet
advertising business division due to acquisitions it made.

The complaint filed by Scott Bauer also alleges that the company
issued a press release concerning its second quarter 2007
financial results that contained inaccurate statements of material
fact.

On Sept. 5, 2008, the company, certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

On Nov. 5, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed its opposition to the
motion to dismiss.  A reply brief was filed on Dec. 5, 2008.

On March 29, 2010, the court issued an opinion granting the
company's motion to dismiss.  On March 30, 2010, the court entered
a judgment dismissing the case.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on April 29, 2010,
appealing the judgment granting the motion to dismiss.


FORTINET INC: Stockholder Suit in California Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Fortinet, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit filed a stockholder in California, according to the
company's November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

In April 2010, an individual, a former stockholder of Fortinet,
filed a class action lawsuit against the company in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles
alleging violation of various California Corporations' Code
sections and related tort claims alleging misrepresentation and
breach of fiduciary duty regarding the 2009 repurchase by Fortinet
of shares of its stock while the company was a privately-held
company.

In September 2010, the Court granted the company's motion to
transfer the case to the California Superior Court for Santa Clara
County.


GATEWAY INC: Sued for Selling Defective LX6810 Desktop Computers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Gateway knows its LX6810 desktop computers freeze, crash and lose
data, but the company keeps selling them.

A copy of the Complaint in Frost, et al. v. Gateway, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-01785 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/23/Gateway.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William J. Doyle II, Esq.
          John A. Lowther, Esq.
          James R. Hail, Esq.
          DOYLE LOWTHER LLP
          9466 Black Mountain Road, Suite 210
          San Diego, CA 90071
          Telephone: (619) 573-1700
          E-mail: bill@doylelowther.com
                  john@doylelowther.com
                  jim@doylelowther.com

               - and -

          Thomas E. Glynn, Esq.
          GLYNN LAW GROUP
          9466 Black Mountain Road, Suite 215
          Telephone: (858) 271-1100
          E-mail: tom@glynnlawgroup.com


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Sued in Pa. for Selling Defective Dishwashers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that General Electric sold
2.5 million dishwashers that can, and some of which did, short
circuit and cause fires, a class action claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Byrne, et ux. v. General Electric,
Case No. _____ (Pa. C.P. Ct., Philadelphia Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/23/GEDish.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Maxwell S. Kennerly, Esq.
          THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC
          The Beasley Building
          1125 Walnut Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: 215-592-1000
          E-mail: maxwell.kennerly@beasleyfirm.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Donovan, Esq.
          DONOVAN SEARLES, LLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 732-6067
          E-mail: mdonovan@donovansearles.com


HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Jan. 20 Class Settlement Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
John George, writing for Philadelphia Business Journal, reports a
hearing has been scheduled for Jan. 20 on a proposed $3.6 million
settlement of class-action lawsuits filed against Hemispherx
BioPharma Inc.

The proposed deal stems from lawsuits filed last year that were
consolidated at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.  Investors alleged that the Philadelphia
biotechnology company violated federal securities laws by
misleading investors regarding the status of Hemispherx's new drug
application for Ampligen, which is being developed to treat
chronic fatigue syndrome.

The lawsuit alleges that the company failed to disclose that the
Food and Drug Administration had requested several reports from
Hemispherx before the application could be considered -- thereby
delaying for months, at a minimum, the possible approval of
Ampligen.

When Hemispherx -- which is still working to get Ampligen approved
-- disclosed the information in November 2009, its stock price
fell 20% to $1.13.  The stock was trading Wednesday at 49 cents
per share.

The Philadelphia Law firm Berger and Montague is co-lead counsel
for the plaintiffs in the litigation, along with Brower Piven in
New York.

After the lawsuit was filed, Hemispherx BioPharma issued a press
release saying the complaint was "without merit."

Earlier this month, the company said it had, a result of court
mediation proceedings, entered into a written agreement in
principle to "settle all of the currently pending securities class
actions consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania."  Hemispherx said that, assuming the
agreement receives final approval by the court, it will be paid
from existing insurance coverage and will not result in the
payment of any funds by the company.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Recalls More Tylenol Products Over Labeling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Rockoff at The Wall Street Journal reports that Johnson &
Johnson, which has been recalling a number of popular over-the-
counter medicines, is withdrawing more Tylenol because of a
labeling problem.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the company's McNeil
Consumer Healthcare unit is recalling nearly 9.3 million bottles
of three Tylenol Cold Multi-Symptom products from drug stores and
suppliers because the bottles' front labels didn't show they
contain small amounts of alcohol from ingredients that flavor the
medicine.  The report relates that the bottles' boxes and back
labels did reflect the presence of alcohol. The  company said the
alcohol amounted to less than a percent of the medicine's
contents, the report notes.

The Wall Street Journal reports the company said that the labeling
problem doesn't threaten the health of consumers, who don't need
to return or stop using the medicines.

Yet it highlights the continuing fallout from the manufacturing
problems that have bedeviled J&J, the report notes.

The company, the report relates, has indicated more such actions
are likely, as it tries to bring its manufacturing up to
compliance under the watchful eye of regulators.

The report notes that scrutiny follows a string of more-serious
manufacturing problems at the company that have led to more than a
half-dozen withdrawals of Tylenol and other over-the-counter
medicines, some contact lenses and certain hip-replacement parts.
Due to those issues, some over-the-counter medicines could have
been more potent than they should have been, contained metal
shavings or had a musty smell causing nausea, the report
discloses.

The Wall Street Journal posts that the recalls are costing the
company hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales and prompted
the temporary shutdown of a key manufacturing plant and a revamp
of manufacturing.  The company has also shuffled management, the
report adds.


KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Agrees to Settle Chinese Drywall Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nirvi Shah, writing for Miami Herald, reports homeowners in a
Homestead neighborhood who had sued a drywall supplier and drywall
manufacturer were offered money and repairs last week.

Drywall manufacturer Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin agreed last week
to pay to repair dozens of houses in Homestead that were part of a
class-action suit over Chinese drywall -- and cover their
attorneys' fees and other expenses.

And the homeowners won't have to pay back the manufacturer if less
than 95% of the drywall in their homes turns out to be KPT board,
a sticking point in the past.

In another victory last week for the same group of homeowners --
just days before their case was slated for trial -- Miami drywall
supplier Banner Supply offered a settlement to the 79 homeowners
whose houses became unlivable because of the defective Chinese
product the company provided.

The lead plaintiffs in the class-action suit are Jason and Melissa
Harrell, who bought a two-story house in a Homestead neighborhood
built by South Kendall Construction in 2008.  They sued in 2009
after they found imported drywall to be the source of the smell
and appliance breakdowns in their home.  Their case became the
first class-action suit in the country over Chinese drywall.

"The Harrells, they fought from the beginning, not only for
themselves," said their attorney, Victor Diaz.  "I know that they
feel very personally satisfied, and I know I do, that we got them
across the finish line."

Other companies sued in the class-action case had already offered
cash settlements for their roles in the drywall chain.  South
Kendall Construction and an affiliate, Palm Isles Holdings, agreed
to pay $4 million.  Keys Gate Realty settle for $2.6 million.
Atco, the installer, paid $375,000.  While attorneys did not
disclose the exact amount Banner agreed to pay, they said the
total contributed by all parties is about $9 million, putting
Banner's portion at about $2 million.

The deal with KPT is part of a larger offer by the company to
remediate hundreds of homes in Florida, Alabama, Louisiana and
Mississippi.  In many of these homes, appliances including air
conditioners have broken down repeatedly because of sulfur-
compounds emitted from the drywall and the homes developed an
intense odor.

In addition to repairs and attorneys costs, the company will pay
each homeowner $8.50 per square foot of their home for expenses.

The homeowners can choose to have their homes repaired by KPT,
ending litigation against that company, or they can take a cash
settlement from the other defendants and continue their case
against KPT.

KPT attorney Gregory Wallace issued statement saying the company
"looks forward to working with homeowners impacted by its
drywall."  Attorneys for Banner could not be reached for comment.

Mr. Diaz said 49 of the homeowners, including the Harrells,
qualify for KPT's offer, although a few have already paid for
repairs on their own.  Lawsuits against other Chinese
manufacturers -- which have not responded to U.S. court
proceedings -- will continue.

About 3,700 complaints from 40 states, the District of Columbia,
American Samoa, and Puerto Rico have been filed with the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, most of them from Florida.


KNOLOGY INC: Proceedings in "Manard" Class Suit Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Knology, Inc., said in a Form 10-Q for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2010, that the proceedings in a class action lawsuit
alleging privacy violations remain stayed.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit captioned
Manard v. Knology, Inc., filed in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia. The complaint was filed on
February 2, 2010, as a putative class action. The case arose out
of an online advertising trial of a system designed by a third-
party advertising company, NebuAd Inc., for delivery of
advertising to computer users while they are navigating the
Internet. The complaint, which was filed on behalf of Knology
customers using the Internet during the trial period, alleges that
electronic communications were intercepted and used in violation
of the federal and state privacy statutes and seeks statutory
damages for such alleged violations. The action was initially
filed in California against Knology and other defendants where it
was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Counsel for the plaintiff
has filed new complaints against the same defendants but they
filed separate complaints against each company trialing NebuAd's
system.

Knology filed its motion to dismiss on March 26, 2010.

On April 22, 2010, Knology filed a motion to compel arbitration
and stay the proceedings in the District Court. On June 18, 2010,
the District Court granted the Company's motion to compel
arbitration and stay court proceedings and determined that
Knology's motion to dismiss was moot.

The Company said it intends to vigorously defend the case in
arbitration. Given that this claim is still in its initial stages,
it is premature to estimate the impact it could have to its
results of operation, financial condition or cash flows, the
Company added.


LADISH CO: Being Sold to Allegheny for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim Ladish, an
engineering company, is selling itself too cheaply to Allegheny
Technologies through an unfair process, for $778 million, in a
cash and stock deal ($24 in cash and 0.4556 Allegheny shares per
Ladish share), in Milwaukee County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Praslin v. Bianchi, et al., Case
No. _____ (Wis. Cir. Ct., Milwaukee Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/23/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          K. Scott Wagner, Esq.
          HALE & WAGNER, S.C.
          839 N. Jefferson St., Suite 400
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 278-7000

               - and -

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Cullin A. O'Brien, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000

               - and -

          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          A. Rick Atwood, Jr. Esq.
          David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3301
          Telephone: 619-231-1058

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
          955 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: 484-588-5515


LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend Right-of-Way Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Communications, Inc., continues to defend itself against
various class action litigation asserted against it over rights-
of-way relating to its fiber optic cable network, the Company
disclosed in its November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are parties to a
number of purported class action lawsuits involving their right to
install fiber optic cable network in railroad right-of-ways
adjacent to plaintiffs' land.  The only lawsuit in which a class
has been certified against the Company occurred in Koyle, et. al.
v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et. al., a purported two-state
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Idaho.  In November 2005, the court granted class certification
only for the state of Idaho.

The Company has defeated motions for class certification in a
number of the other actions, but expect that plaintiffs in the
pending lawsuits will continue to seek certification of statewide
or multi-state classes.

In general, Level 3 Communications obtained the rights to
construct its networks from railroads, utilities, and others, and
have installed its networks along the rights-of-way so granted.
Plaintiffs in the purported class actions assert that they are the
owners of lands over which Level 3 Communications' fiber optic
cable networks pass, and that the railroads, utilities, and others
who granted Level 3 Communications the right to construct and
maintain its networks did not have the legal authority to do so.

The complaints seek damages on theories of trespass, unjust
enrichment and slander of title and property, as well as punitive
damages.

Level 3 Communications has also received, and may in the future
receive, claims and demands related to rights-of-way issues
similar to the issues in these cases that may be based on similar
or different legal theories.

Level 3 Communications negotiated a series of class settlements
affecting all persons who own or owned land next to or near
railroad rights of way in which it has its fiber optic cable
network.  The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts in Kingsborough v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P.
granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement; however,
on September 10, 2009, the court denied a motion for final
approval of the settlement on the basis that the court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case.

It is still too early for the Company to reach a conclusion as to
the ultimate outcome of these actions.  However, management
believes that Level 3 Communications has substantial defenses to
the claims asserted in all of these actions, and intends to defend
them vigorously if a satisfactory settlement is not ultimately
negotiated and approved.

Additionally, management believes that any resulting liabilities
for these actions, beyond amounts reserved, will not materially
affect the Company's financial condition or future results of
operations, but could affect future cash flows.


LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend Securities Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Communications, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
securities class action filed against it since 2009.

In February 2009, the Company, certain of its current officers,
and a former officer were named as defendants in purported class
action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado, which have been consolidated as In re Level
3 Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation (Civil Case No. 09-
cv-00200-PAB-CBS).

The Plaintiffs in each complaint allege, in general, that
throughout the purported class period specified in the complaint,
that the defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's integration activities, business and
operations.  The complaints seek damages based on purported
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

On May 4, 2009, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff in the case,
and on September 29, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Class Action Complaint.

A motion to dismiss the Complaint was filed by the Company and the
other named defendants.  While the motion to dismiss the Complaint
was pending, the court granted the lead plaintiff's motion to
further amend the Complaint.  Thereafter, the Company and the
other defendants named in the Amended Complaint filed a motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint with prejudice, which is pending
before the court.

The Company related in its November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010, that it remains too early for it to reach a
conclusion as to the ultimate outcome of the actions.  However,
management believes that the Company has substantial defenses to
the claims asserted in all of these actions and intends to defend
the actions vigorously.


LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend ERISA Suit in Colorado
------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Communications, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit relating to investments in the Company's
401(k) plan.

In March 2009, late April 2009 and early May 2009, the Company,
the Company's 401(k) Plan Committee, and certain current and
former officers and directors of the Company were named as
defendants in purported class action lawsuits filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado.  The cases have been
consolidated as Walter v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et. al.,
(Civil Case No. 09cv00658).

The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary and other duties under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act with respect to
investments in the Company's common stock held in individual
participant accounts in the 401(k) Plan.  The complaint claims
that those investments were imprudent.

In a November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010,
the Company said it is too early to predict the ultimate outcome
of the ERISA actions.  Management, however, believes that the
Company has substantial defenses to the claims asserted in all of
these actions and intends to defend these actions vigorously.


LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Settlement of Arizona Securities Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Limelight Networks, Inc., is working to finalize a settlement of a
securities lawsuit pending in Arizona, according to the company's
November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In August 2007, the Company, certain of its officers and current
and former directors, and the firms that served as the lead
underwriters in the Company's initial public offering were named
as defendants in several purported class action lawsuits filed in
the United States District Courts for the District of Arizona and
the Southern District of New York.  All of the New York cases were
transferred to Arizona and consolidated into a single action.

The plaintiffs' consolidated complaint asserted causes of action
under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, on behalf of a purported class of individuals who
purchased the Company's common stock in its initial public
offering and pursuant to its Prospectus.  The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the Company omitted and misstated certain
facts concerning the seasonality of its business and the loss of
revenue related to certain customers.

On March 17, 2008, the Company and the individual defendants moved
to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims and a hearing was held on
June 16, 2008.  On August 8, 2008, the court granted the motion to
dismiss, dismissing plaintiffs' claims under Section 12 with
prejudice and granting leave to amend the claims under Sections 11
and 15.  Plaintiffs chose not to amend the claims under Sections
11 and 15, and on August 29, 2008, the court entered judgment in
favor of the Company.  On September 5, 2008, plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal, and appellate briefs were filed by the parties
in January and February 2009.

The Company believes that it and the individual defendants have
meritorious defenses to the plaintiffs' claims and intends to
contest the lawsuits vigorously.

In November 2009, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding to settle this lawsuit for an amount well within the
coverage limits of the primary carrier of the Company's directors
and officers' liability insurance.  The Company is working to
finalize the settlement, which will require court approval.

The Company is not able at this time to estimate the range of
potential loss nor, in light of the pending settlement does it
believe that a loss is probable.  Therefore, the Company said
there is no provision for these lawsuits in its financial
statements.


LINCOLN EDUCATIONAL: Faces 2 Securities Class Suits in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Educational Services Corporation is facing two securities
class action lawsuits in New Jersey, according to the company's
November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The Company and several executive officers have been named as
defendants in two purported class action lawsuits.  The
complaints, which were both filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, allege that the Company and the other
defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business and
prospects in violation of federal securities laws.

The plaintiffs seek damages for the purported class.  The
complaints were filed on August 13, 2010, and September 19, 2010,
and are respectively captioned, Donald J. and Mary S. Moreaux v.
Lincoln Educational Services Corp., David F. Carney, Shaun
E.McAlmont and Cesar Ribeiro, and Robert Lyathaud v. Lincoln
Educational Services Corp., David F. Carney, Shaun E. McAlmont and
Cesar Ribeiro.

Based on its initial review of the complaints, the Company
believes the lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend against them.


MEIJER: Recalls 6,700 Touch Point Oscillating Ceramic Heaters
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Meijer, of Grand Rapids, Mich., announced a voluntary recall of
about 6,700 Touch Point Oscillating Ceramic Heaters.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The oscillating mechanism in the heaters can short out, posing a
fire hazard to consumers.

Meijer has received two reports of incidents involving fires that
resulted in property damage.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Touch Point PTC oscillating ceramic heater
with model number PTC-902 and serial numbers between 35005-43008.
Model and serial numbers are located on a sticker on the bottom of
the heater.  The grey/silver colored heaters are about 10 inches
tall and have a screen across the front.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11053.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Meijer stores in Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, and Ohio
from October 2009 through October 2010 for about $25.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled heaters and
return them to the nearest Meijer retail store for a full refund
of the purchase price.  For additional information, contact Meijer
toll-free at (866) 280-8419 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.meijer.com/


MELA SCIENCES: Faces Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------
On November 19, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against MELA Sciences, Inc.  The complaint alleges violations of
federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including
allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to
the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price.  The class period is from February 13, 2009 through
November 16, 2010.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.  If you
are a member of the Class as described above, you may move the
Court no later than Friday, January 21, 2011, to serve as a lead
plaintiff for the Class.  However, in order to do so, you must
meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, participate in this or any
other lawsuit, or have any questions or concerns regarding this
notice, or preservation of your rights, please contact:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com


METROPCS COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend Securities Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
MetroPCS Communications, Inc., remains a defendant in a securities
lawsuit in Texas, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

The company, certain current officers and a director have been
named as defendants in a securities class action lawsuit filed on
December 15, 2009, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-2392.
Plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements about the company's business, prospects and
operations.  The claims are based upon various alleged public
statements made during the period from February 26, 2009, through
November 4, 2009.  The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, a
determination that the alleged claims may be asserted on a class-
wide basis, unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees,
other expenses, and costs.

On February 16, 2010, Kevin Hopson, an alleged MetroPCS
shareholder, filed a motion in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas seeking to be designated as the
lead plaintiff in this action.  On May 11, 2010, the Court
appointed Kevin Hopson as lead plaintiff and Plaintiff (an
individual on behalf of others similarly situated) on June 25,
2010 filed an amended complaint.  Defendants' filed a motion to
dismiss on August 9, 2010. Plaintiff filed its opposition to
Defendant's motion to dismiss on September 8, 2010, and
Defendants' reply was filed on October 8, 2010.

The company notes that due to the complex nature of the legal and
factual issues involved in this action, the outcome is not
presently determinable.


MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Reaches Settlement on ERISA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MoneyGram International, Inc., entered into a $4.5-million
settlement agreement with plaintiffs in a class action arising
from the company's 401(k) Plan, according to the company's
November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On April 22, 2008, Delilah Morrison, on behalf of herself and all
other MoneyGram 401(k) Plan participants, brought an action in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.  The
complaint alleges claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, as amended, including claims that the defendants
breached fiduciary duties by failing to manage the plan's
investment in Company stock, and by continuing to offer company
stock as an investment option when the stock was no longer a
prudent investment.

The complaint also alleges that defendants failed to provide
complete and accurate information regarding company stock
sufficient to advise plan participants of the risks involved with
investing in company stock and breached fiduciary duties by
failing to avoid conflicts of interests and to properly monitor
the performance of plan fiduciaries and fiduciary appointees.
Finally, the complaint alleges that to the extent that the Company
is not a fiduciary, it is liable for knowingly participating in
the fiduciary breaches as alleged.

On August 7, 2008, plaintiff amended the complaint to add an
additional plaintiff, name additional defendants and additional
allegations.  For relief, the complaint seeks damages based on
what the most profitable alternatives to company stock would have
yielded, unspecified equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees.
On March 25, 2009, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss.

On April 30, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which defendants opposed in a brief filed May 28,
2010.  On June 8, 2010, defendants filed a motion for partial
summary judgment.  Both motions were scheduled for hearing before
the Court on October 22, 2010.

On October 13, 2010, the company entered into a Settlement
Agreement, which provides for a cash payment of $4.5 million, all
but approximately $0.7 million of which will be paid by the
company's insurance carrier.


MOVE INC: Court Gives Final Approval of Ramirez Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Move, Inc., said in a Form 10-Q for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2010, that a court gave final approval of the
settlement of a class action lawsuit filed by Patricia Ramirez.

On November 12, 2008, Patricia Ramirez, on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated California account executives, filed
a purported class action lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court
against Move, Inc., and its subsidiary Move Sales, Inc., asserting
failure to fully reimburse business expenses, unlawful wage
deductions, failure to timely pay wages due at termination,
failure to timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements,
unfair business practices and declaratory relief.

Subsequent to December 31, 2009, the Company and plaintiff's
attorneys agreed to a tentative settlement of all claims brought
by Ramirez on behalf of herself and all others in the purported
class action. The amount of the settlement was accrued as of
December 31, 2009 and was recorded in the Consolidated Statements
of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2009. Such proposed
settlement required final court approval.

On August 24, 2010 the court entered final approval of the
settlement. The settlement did not have a material effect on the
Company's results of operations or cash flows for the year ended
December 31, 2009.


NATIONAL WESTERN: Makes $21.9-Mil. Settlement Payment in 3rd Qtr.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
National Western Life Insurance Company paid $21.9 million in the
quarter ended September 30, 2010, as part of a settlement of a
class action lawsuit filed in California, according to the
Company's November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company was a defendant in a class action lawsuit initially
filed on September 17, 2004, in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles.  The California state
court certified a class consisting of certain California
policyholders age 65 and older alleging violations under
California Business and Professions Code section 17200.  The court
additionally certified a subclass of 36 policyholders alleging
fraud against their agent, and vicariously against the Company.

The California Insurance Department intervened in this case
asserting that the Company violated California insurance laws.
The parties to this case had been involved in court-ordered
mediation and ongoing negotiations.

On February 22, 2010, the Company reported in a Form 8-K filing a
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs and plaintiff in
intervention providing a settlement benefit of approximately $17
million which was included in the Company's legal accrual
provision at December 31, 2009.

The settlement agreement was given final court approval at a
Fairness Hearing on August 20, 2010.  Including attorney's fees
and other considerations, the Company paid out and provided policy
benefits totaling $21.9 million in the quarter ended September 30,
2010.

At September 30, 2010, the Company maintained an accrual of
$450,000 for settlement amounts to be paid out in the fourth
quarter.


NATIONAL WESTERN: Deferred Annuities Class Action Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against National Western Life
Insurance Company in California is still ongoing, according to the
Company's November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

The Company is a defendant in a class action lawsuit pending as of
June 12, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.  The case is titled In Re National Western
Life Insurance Deferred Annuities Litigation.

The complaint asserts claims for RICO violations, Financial Elder
Abuse, Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200, et seq,
Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17500, et seq, Breach of
Fiduciary Duty, Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty,
Fraudulent Concealment, Cal. Civ. Code 1710, et seq, Breach of the
Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and Unjust Enrichment and
Imposition of Constructive Trust.

On July 12, 2010, the Court certified a nationwide class of
policyholders under the RICO allegation and a California class
under all of the remaining causes of action except breach of
fiduciary duty.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses in this
cause and intends to vigorously defend itself against the asserted
claims.


NISSAN MOTOR: Recalls More Than 600,000 Vehicles
------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Nissan Motor Co. is recalling
more than 600,000 vehicles in North and South America and Africa
due to steering or battery cable problems.

According to the report, the Japanese auto maker said that the
steering recall affects 303,000 Frontier pickup trucks and 283,000
Xterra sport utility vehicles in the U.S., Canada, Mexico,
Argentina, Brazil and other Latin American countries.  The report
relates that Nissan said a corrosion problem with the lower
steering column joint and shaft can limit steering movement,
making the vehicles difficult to steer.  In some cases the
corrosion can cause the joint to crack, the report notes.

The AP says that Nissan also is recalling 18,500 Sentra sedans
because of a battery cable terminal connector problem that can
make the cars difficult to start or stall at low speeds.

The company says no injuries or accidents have been reported
because of either issue.

The report discloses Nissan said in a statement that the Frontiers
covered by the recall are from the 2002 through 2004 model years
and were made from July 9, 2001, to Oct. 20, 2004, in Smyrna,
Tenn., for the North American market.   Frontiers made from Nov.
30, 2001, to June 26, 2008, in Curitiba, Brazil, for South and
Central American markets also are in the recall, the report says.

The AP posts that the 2002-2004 North American Xterras in the
recall were made from July 9, 2001, to Jan. 6, 2005, also at the
Smyrna plant.

The report relates that Xterras made from Feb. 17, 2003, to June
13, 2008, in Curitiba, Brazil, for South and Central American
markets also are affected.

Nissan, The AP says, also said it will replace the positive
battery cable terminal on affected Sentras.  The vehicles were
built at the Aguascalientes, Mexico, plant from May 22, 2010 to
July 8, 2010, the report discloses.

The auto maker, the report notes, said it will notify owners in
early December when parts are available, and dealers will fix the
problem at no cost to the owners.

Nissan said the steering problem was discovered from cases in
Brazil and Canada, and there have been no field reports in the
U.S.

About 240,000 Frontiers, 261,000 Xterras and 14,000 Sentras are
affected in the U.S, the report adds.


PANERA BREAD: Consolidated Class Action in Missouri Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit filed against Panera Bread
Company in Missouri remains pending, according to the Company's
November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 28, 2010.

On January 25, 2008, and February 26, 2008, purported class action
lawsuits were filed against the Company and three of its current
or former executive officers by the Western Washington Laborers-
Employers Pension Trust and Sue Trachet, on behalf of investors
who purchased the Company's common stock during the period between
November 1, 2005 and July 26, 2006.

Both lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, St. Louis Division.  Each
complaint alleges that the Company and the other defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act in
connection with the Company's disclosure of system-wide sales and
earnings guidance during the period from November 1, 2005 through
July 26, 2006.

Each complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including
attorneys' and experts' fees, and other relief as the Court might
find just and proper.

On June 23, 2008, the lawsuits were consolidated and the Western
Washington Laborers-Employers Pension Trust was appointed lead
plaintiff.

On August 7, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
extended the class period to November 1, 2005, through July 26,
2007.

The Company believes that it and the other defendants have
meritorious defenses to each of the claims in this lawsuit and the
Company is vigorously defending the lawsuit.

On October 6, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all of
the claims in this lawsuit.  Following filings by both parties on
the Company's motion to dismiss, on June 25, 2009, the Court
converted the Company's motion to one for summary judgment and
denied it without prejudice.

The Court simultaneously gave the Company until July 20, 2009, to
file a new motion for summary judgment, which deadline the Court
subsequently extended until August 10, 2009.

On August 10, 2009, the Company filed a motion for summary
judgment.  On September 9, 2009, the plaintiff filed a request to
deny or continue the Company's motion for summary judgment to
allow the plaintiff to conduct discovery.

Following a hearing and subsequent filings by both parties on the
plaintiff's request for discovery, on November 6, 2009, the Court
denied the plaintiff's request.

The plaintiff filed an opposition to the Company's motion for
summary judgment on December 12, 2009, and the Company filed its
reply in support of its motion on December 21, 2009.

On March 16, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the Company's motion for summary judgment.

On April 5, 2010, the Court granted a joint motion by the parties
to stay the case through July 6, 2010, which stay was subsequently
extended by the Court until July 30, 2010, pending an attempt by
the parties to resolve through mediation.

Mediation was not successful and on August 30, 2010, the Company
answered the complaint.


PANERA BREAD: Continues to Defend Against "Sotoudeh" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit was filed against Panera Bread
Company and one of its subsidiaries by Nick Sotoudeh, a former
employee of the Company, on December 9, 2009.

The lawsuit was filed in the California Superior Court, County of
Contra Costa.  The complaint alleges, among other things,
violations of the California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime,
failure to provide meal and rest periods and termination
compensation and violations of California's Unfair Competition
Law.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, collective and class
certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court
might find just and proper.

The Company believes it and the other defendant have meritorious
defenses to each of the claims in this lawsuit and the Company is
prepared to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

No further updates were provided in the Company's November 5,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 28, 2010.


PHILIP MORRIS: Judge Certifies Class in Marlboro Lights Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Shira Schoenberg, writing for Concord Monitor, reports a Merrimack
County Superior Court judge on November 22 certified what
defendants say could be the largest class action lawsuit ever in
New Hampshire, against cigarette company Philip Morris USA.

The suit alleges Philip Morris violated the state's Consumer
Protection Act through unfair and deceptive marketing of Marlboro
Lights cigarettes.

"The light-cigarette smokers in New Hampshire who bought Marlboros
are at least potentially -- it will take many years -- but are
potentially going to receive compensation for the false statements
that they were lower in tar and nicotine, and they were lighter
than regular cigarettes, when in fact the tobacco is identical,"
said Concord attorney Chuck Douglas, the lead attorney
representing the plaintiffs.

Philip Morris spokesman Steve Callahan said the company will
appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.  "We believe granting
class certification is contrary to the many decisions and laws
governing class actions," Mr. Callahan said.

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2008 cleared the way for class
action suits against cigarette companies that manufacture "light"
cigarettes to go forward in state courts.  Since then, there have
been numerous lawsuits filed around the country with mixed
results.  Class action suits have been certified in Massachusetts,
Minnesota and Missouri.  Judges in eight other states have
rejected attempts to certify similar classes.

According to Philip Morris's filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, there were 29 pending cases regarding the use
of the word "light" or "ultra-light," as of Oct. 25, of which 15
are part of a multi-district case in federal court.

"They all have the basic factual allegation that tobacco companies
engaged in consumer fraud when they put out marketing to represent
that so-called 'light' cigarettes would in fact deliver less tar
and nicotine to smokers and would also be less hazardous than
regular cigarettes," said Edward Sweda, senior staff attorney for
the Tobacco Products Liability Project at the Boston-based Public
Health Advocacy Institute, which helps attorneys with tobacco
litigation.  "They made those representations knowing that was not
the case."

The lead plaintiff in New Hampshire is Karen Lawrence of
Manchester.  Ms. Lawrence could not be reached Tuesday last week.
According to the suit, Ms. Lawrence bought and smoked an average
of 1 1/2 to two packs a day of Marlboro Lights for nearly 30
years.  Ms. Lawrence switched from regular Marlboro brand
cigarettes to Ms. Marlboro Lights about 1973, believing that light
cigarettes presented reduced health risks.

"Through the misrepresentations associated with Marlboro Lights
. . . (Philip Morris) represented that these cigarettes contained
lower levels of tar and nicotine and were, thereby, less harmful
by using words such as 'Lights' and 'Lowered Tar & Nicotine,'"
Lawrence's attorneys wrote.

The lawsuit claims that Philip Morris developed a way to control
the amount of tar and nicotine that registers in machine tests --
which are used to determine whether a cigarette can be marketed as
light -- while still delivering the same amount of tar and
nicotine to consumers and producing smoke that is more toxic than
smoke from regular Marlboros.

Ms. Lawrence asked the judge to certify a class that includes
everyone who bought Marlboro Lights in New Hampshire since Philip
Morris first started selling them in 1971.  Ms. Lawrence estimated
that the number would be in the hundreds of thousands.

Ms. Lawrence is asking the judge to make Philip Morris pay triple
the amount of either any actual damages or $1,000 per class
member, plus a refund of the money customers paid for Marlboro
Lights and any profits the company made from the cigarettes.

In addition to Douglas's firm, Douglas, Leonard and Garvey,
Ms. Lawrence is represented by attorneys in St. Louis and Chicago
from the firm of Korein Tillery, a leader in tobacco class action
suits.

Philip Morris argued that a class action suit is inappropriate,
since each individual plaintiff must prove that a false statement
by Philip Morris caused an injury and specify the amount of that
injury.

"The result would be either a never-ending legal proceeding or the
violation of (Philip Morris) USA's fundamental rights and a
wholesale rewriting of New Hampshire law," wrote company attorneys
led by Manchester attorney Wilbur Glahn of McLane, Graf, Raulerson
& Middleton.  Philip Morris is also represented by attorneys from
Arnold & Porter in Washington, D.C., and New York.

Philip Morris, in an objection to the class certification, said
the class would "span nearly forty years of an ever-changing
information environment, have an estimated 'hundreds of thousands'
of members spread across the country and abroad . . . and
encompass billions of transactions."

Determining who bought how many packs of cigarettes in New
Hampshire would result in "thousands of mini-trials for decades to
come, overwhelming this State's already burdened judiciary,"
company attorneys wrote.

Philip Morris claims that many of the people suing smoked Marlboro
Lights in a way that resulted in less tar and less nicotine.
Beginning in 1999, Philip Morris launched a public campaign to
educate people that light cigarettes were light in taste and
flavor and did not imply safe cigarettes.

Philip Morris USA is the country's number one cigarette maker,
controlling about half of the market, said Darryl Jayson, vice
president of the Tobacco Merchants Association.

Merrimack County Superior Court Judge Larry Smukler, in a 15-page
order issued November 22, certified the case as a class action.
The court file already takes up eight folders.

Ms. Lawrence originally filed the lawsuit in 2002, but it was put
on hold pending the outcome of related cases pending before the
U.S. Supreme Court, Mr. Douglas said.  The Supreme Court ruled in
an appeal of a Maine case in December 2008 that state lawsuits
were not pre-empted by federal law and could go forward.

One state case had gone to trial earlier.  An Illinois judge
returned a $10.1 billion verdict against Philip Morris in 2003 --
but the Illinois Supreme Court overturned the ruling, finding that
the Federal Trade Commission had authorized the company to use the
term "light."

Mr. Jayson said similar arguments could be used in New Hampshire.

"If the government allowed these cigarettes to be called light in
the first place . . . how can they be considered breaking the law
or being deceptive?" Mr. Jayson said.

The case will not necessarily change labeling practices.  In 2009,
Congress passed and President Obama signed the Family Smoking
Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.  Among other provisions, the
law gives the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authority to
regulate tobacco products, and it bans cigarette companies from
advertising or labeling tobacco products with the words "light,"
"mild" or "low" without an FDA order.  Companies such as Philip
Morris have begun color-coding products instead, offering Marlboro
Gold cigarettes instead of Marlboro Lights.

Mr. Douglas said he anticipates it will be at least a year before
the case can go to trial, assuming it is not dismissed or resolved
earlier.


PHUSION PROJECTS: Accused in California of Deceptive Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Phusion Projects dba Drink Four Brewing fails to warn of the
dangers of drinking its caffeinated alcohol drinks.

A copy of the Complaint in Serrano v. Phusion Projects, LLC, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-08964 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/23/BoozenCaffeine.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard W. Rubinstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN
          P.O. Box 4839
          Aspen, CO 81612
          Telephone: (832) 715-2788
          E-mail: howardr@pdq.net

               - and -

          Harold M. Hewell, Esq.
          HEWELL LAW FIRM
          105 West F Street, Second Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 235-6854
          E-mail: hmhewell@hewell-lawfirm.com


PIONEER FOODS: Counsel Balks Against Price Collusion Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wyndham Hartley, writing for Business Day, reports The Black Sash,
Congress of South African Trade Unions and National Consumer
Forum, who tried to gain urgent certification as the
representatives of all eaters of bread in the Western Cape, were
Tuesday alluded to as "busybodies bringing spurious litigation" by
the counsel for Pioneer Foods.

Their application to the Cape high court Tuesday is the first
skirmish in an attempt to mount a class action against Pioneer
Foods, Tiger Brands and Premier Foods for damages after the
Competition Tribunal's finding in February that they were guilty
of collusive behavior.

The class action could potentially add many millions to the almost
R1bn already paid in fines.

Renata Williams, counsel for the Black Sash and the others, said
the motivation for the application was to enable summons to be
served on Tiger Brands before the three-year prescription period
expired.

Tiger Brands was found guilty of collusive behavior in November
2007, and the deadline for a civil case is on Friday.

Legal counsel for all three companies insisted that the matter was
not urgent because certification that the applicants represented
the class of bread consumers was not needed in order for Tiger
Brands to be summoned.

They suggested that the reason for the urgent application was to
try to reduce the risk of mounting a class action against Tiger
Brands without certification.

When proceedings opened, Acting Judge Francois van Zyl raised the
first problem by saying that as a bread consumer in the Western
Cape there was a potential conflict of interest inherent in him
hearing the application at all.

Only once counsel for the three companies had said they were happy
that even if he was a bread consumer he could hear the case, did
he proceed.

Ms. Williams, under questioning from Judge van Zyl, said that the
reason for approaching the court for a certificate authorizing the
Black Sash grouping as a representative of bread consumers, was
because the litigation could be risky, with costs involved and
they felt strongly enough to ask the court for a certificate.

The contention is that the collusion on prices by the three
companies caused harm to consumers, particularly the poor, and was
a contravention of their constitutional rights to enough food and
water and the right of children to nutrition.

Ms. Williams said the class action sought to recover for consumers
the overcharge on bread as a result of the collusion by the three
companies.  Judge van Zyl looked around the largely well-fed court
and wryly remarked that some bread consumers clearly had not been
prejudiced by the overcharge.

Ms. Williams responded that while some consumers might not have
been affected, there were others, particularly the indigent, who
were.

Counsel for Pioneer Foods Paul McNally rejected the urgency of the
application saying that certification as being representative of a
class was not required in order to mount a class action.

He suggested that the application was seeking "the luxury" of
acting against Tiger Brands with certification.  While preceding
cases had suggested that a certification hearing should be
followed, an action would not be invalid without it.

"This matter is not urgent and should be dismissed with costs,"
Mr. McNally said.

He said the Competition Tribunal ruling had been on collusion and
there was no evidence that the price charged was not market
related.

He also said the fact that people were overcharged for bread did
not automatically lead to the conclusion that their constitutional
right to food had been infringed.

It had not been shown that those mounting the application "are not
busybodies bringing spurious litigation", Mr. McNally said.


PITNEY-BOWES INC: Imagitas Seeks Dismissal of DriverSource Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pitney-Bowes, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Imagitas, Inc., is
asking a Florida court to dismiss class actions relating to a
program called DriverSource, the Company disclosed in its Nov. 5,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The Company relates that Imagitas was a defendant in 10 purported
class actions filed in six different states.  Those lawsuits have
been coordinated in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, In re: Imagitas, Driver's Privacy
Protection Act Litigation (Coordinated, May 28, 2007).

Each of the lawsuits alleged that the Imagitas DriverSource
program violated the federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act
(DPPA).

Under the DriverSource program, Imagitas entered into contracts
with state governments to mail out automobile registration renewal
materials along with third party advertisements, without revealing
the personal information of any state resident to any advertiser.
The DriverSource program assisted the state in performing its
governmental function of delivering these mailings and funding the
costs of them.

The plaintiffs in the actions were seeking statutory damages under
the DPPA.

On April 9, 2008, the District Court granted Imagitas' motion for
summary judgment in one of the coordinated cases, Rine, et al., v.
Imagitas, Inc. (United States District Court, Middle District of
Florida, filed August 1, 2006).

On July 30, 2008, the District Court issued a final judgment in
the Rine lawsuit and stayed all of the other cases filed against
Imagitas pending an appellate decision in Rine.

On August 27, 2008, the Rine plaintiffs filed an appeal of the
District Court's decision in the United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Judicial Circuit.

On December 21, 2009, the Circuit Court affirmed the District
Court decision.

On February 22, 2010, the Circuit Court denied the Rine
plaintiffs' petition for rehearing en banc.  The Rine plaintiffs'
ability to pursue further review of that decision has expired.

With respect to the remaining stayed cases, Imagitas filed its
motion to dismiss these cases on October 8, 2010.


PITNEY-BOWES INC: Faces Amended Complaint in Conn. Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a Connecticut class action suit against Pitney-
Bowes, Inc., amended their complaint relating to securities the
Company issued, the Company noted in its November 5, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On October 28, 2009, the Company and certain of its current and
former officers, were named as defendants in NECA-IBEW Health &
Welfare Fund v. Pitney Bowes Inc., et al., a class action lawsuit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 on behalf of those who purchased the common stock of the
Company during the period between July 30, 2007 and October 29,
2007 alleging that the Company, in essence, missed two financial
projections.

The Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 20, 2010.

The Company asserts that the case is without merit and intend to
defend it vigorously.


RAE SYSTEMS: Faces 10 Lawsuits Related to Battery Ventures Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rae Systems, Inc., is named in 10 putative class action lawsuits
related to its merger with Battery Ventures, according to the
company's November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On September 20, 2010, a putative class action suit, entitled
Foley v. RAE Systems Inc., et al., No. 110CV182985, was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, against
the Company, members of its Board of Directors, the Company's
Chief Financial Officer, and entities affiliated with Battery
Ventures. The suit alleges in summary that, in connection with the
proposed acquisition of the Company by an affiliate of Battery
Ventures, the individual defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by conducting an unfair sale process and agreeing to an
unfair price, are purportedly receiving improper personal
benefits, and were aided and abetted by the other defendants.
Plaintiff seeks, among other things, a declaration that the suit
can be maintained as a class action, an injunction against the
proposed merger, rescission of the Merger Agreement, a directive
that the defendants exercise their fiduciary duties to implement a
process to secure the best possible consideration for
stockholders, imposition of a constructive trust on allegedly
improper benefits, and fees and costs.

Four other lawsuits making similar allegations have also been
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Santa Clara against the Company, its Board of Directors and
Battery Ventures or its affiliates: Angles v. RAE Systems Inc., et
al., No. 110CV183606; Greenbaum v. Chen , et al., No. 110CV183814;
AC Photonics, Inc. v. RAE Systems Inc., et al., No. 110CV183942;
and Mann v. RAE Systems Inc., et al. , No. 110CV183960. Those
actions have now been consolidated.

In addition, four putative class action suits with similar
allegations have been filed in Delaware Chancery Court: Nelson v.
RAE Systems Inc., et al. , C.A. No. 5848-VCS; Venton v. RAE
Systems Inc., et al. , C.A. No. 5854-VCS; Quintanilla v. RAE
Systems Inc., et al. , C.A. No. 5872; Villeneuve v. RAE Systems
Inc., et al. , C.A. No. 5877. Those actions have also been
consolidated, and a consolidated amended complaint has been filed.

Finally, one lawsuit has been filed against the Company, members
of its Board of Directors, the Company's Chief Financial Officer,
and Battery Ventures in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, LaPlante v. RAE Systems Inc., et
al., No. CV104944. This suit makes allegations similar to the
others, and also adds an allegation claiming violation of the
federal securities laws in connection with the preparation of the
proxy statement filed by the Company in connection with the
proposed acquisition.

The Company believes that the claims in the suits are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. However,
there can be no assurances as to the outcome of the litigation.


REALPAGE INC: Continues to Defend "Minor" Suit in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
RealPage, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit in Texas alleging, among other things, violations by the
company of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, according to the
company's November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

On June 15, 2009, a prospective resident of one of the company's
customers filed a class action lawsuit styled Minor v. RealPage,
Inc. against the company in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, which was transferred to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
(No. 4:09CV-00439).  The plaintiff has alleged two individual
claims and three class-based causes of action against the company.

Individually, the plaintiff alleges that the company (i) willfully
failed to employ reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum
accuracy of its resident screening reports as required by 15
U.S.C. Section 1681e(b) and, in the alternative, (ii) negligently
(within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681o(a)) failed to
employ reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum accuracy of the
company's resident screening reports, as required by 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681e(b), in each case stemming from the company's
provision of a report that allegedly included inaccurate criminal
conviction information.  The plaintiff seeks actual, statutory and
punitive damages on her individual claims.

In her capacity as the putative class representative, the
plaintiff also alleges that the company: (i) willfully failed to
provide legally mandated disclosures upon a consumer's request
inconsistent with 15 U.S.C. Section 1681g; (ii) willfully failed
to provide prompt notice of consumers' disputes to the data
furnishers who provided the company with the information whose
accuracy was in question, as required by 15 U.S.C. Section
1681i(a)(2); and (iii) willfully failed to provide prompt notice
of consumers' disputes to the consumer reporting agencies
providing the company with the information whose accuracy was in
question, as required by 15 U.S.C. Section 1681i(f).

The plaintiff seeks statutory and punitive damages, a declaration
that the company's practices and procedures are in violation of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act and attorneys' fees and costs.

The company says because this lawsuit is at an early stage, it is
not possible to predict its outcome.  The company further believes
that it has meritorious defenses to the claims in this case and
intend to defend it vigorously.


RES-CARE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Onex Transaction
----------------------------------------------------
Res-Care, Inc., has been named defendant in a putative stockholder
class action suit over its deal with Onex Partners III, L.P., the
Company noted in its November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

Res-Care entered into a definitive agreement with an entity
sponsored by Onex Partners, an affiliate of Onex Corporation.

The class action suit, filed on September 22, 2010, is styled as
Stanley Margolis v. Ralph Gronefeld, et al., Case No. 10-CI-6597.
It was filed in the Court of Jefferson County, Kentucky against
ResCare, Onex and the members of the Company's Board of Directors.

The complaint generally alleges that the Individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
Onex Transaction.  In that regard, the complaint includes, among
other things, allegations:

   -- that the consideration to be received by ResCare's
      shareholders is unfair and inadequate;

   -- that the proposed Onex Transaction employs a process which
      is unfair and inadequate and which has not been designed to
      maximize stockholder value;

   -- that the Share Exchange Agreement includes inappropriate
      deal protection devices such as "no shop," matching rights,
      and termination fee provisions;

   -- that the Board may consider alternatives to the transaction
      but only under a limited set of circumstances; and

   -- that the combined effect of these provisions is to ensure
      that no competing offers will emerge for the Company.

The complaint also alleges that the Individual Directors aided and
abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

The complaint seeks class certification, certain forms of
injunctive relief, including enjoining and rescinding the Onex
Transaction, unspecified damages, and payment of plaintiff's
attorney's costs and fees.


SHORETEL INC: Court Okays $3 Million Settlement in "Watkins" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2010, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California approved, on a final basis, ShoreTel,
Inc.'s $3.0 million settlement, which resolves a securities class
action lawsuit pending in California, according to the company's
November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On January 16, 2008, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
captioned Watkins v. ShoreTel, Inc., et al., was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering.

A second purported class action alleging the same claims were
filed on January 29, 2008, and the lawsuits were consolidated.  A
second consolidated amended class action complaint was
subsequently filed on March 2, 2009.  The consolidated action was
purportedly brought on behalf of those who purchased the Company's
common stock pursuant to the initial public offering on July 3,
2007, purports to allege claims for violations of the federal
securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
other relief.

The Company and counsel for the lead plaintiffs reached an
agreement in principle in February 2010 to settle the litigation
for $3.0 million, pursuant to which, without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing of any kind, the Company would pay the
plaintiff class $0.3 million with the remaining $2.7 million
funded by insurance.

This settlement agreement, which resolved all the claims in the
litigation, received final Court approval in October 2010.


SHORETEL INC: Approval of Settlement in "Berkovitz" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
ShoreTel, Inc., is awaiting final approval of a settlement in a
shareholder derivative class action pending in California,
according to the company's November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

On January 30, 2008, a purported shareholder derivative lawsuit
captioned Berkovitz v. Combs, et al., was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, against
the Company (as a nominal defendant), its directors and certain
officers.  The complaint purported to allege claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and other claims and seeks unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief based on essentially the same allegations
as the class action litigation.

The Company and plaintiffs reached an agreement in principle to
settle the litigation in February 2010, pursuant to which, without
admitting any liability or wrongdoing of any kind, the Company
adopted certain corporate remedial measures.

This settlement agreement, which resolved all the claims in the
litigation, is pending final Court approval.


SKYWEST INC: Reaches MOU on Class Suits Over ExpressJet Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Skywest, Inc., and its subsidiary, Atlantic Southeast Airlines,
Inc., has been sued by certain parties over their transaction deal
with ExpressJet Holdings Inc.

The Company, on August 3, 2010, entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with ExpressJet Holdings and Express Delaware Merger
Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of Atlantic Southeast, pursuant to
which Atlantic Southeast proposes to acquire ExpressJet.  The
Merger Agreement provides for the merger of Express Merger Co. and
ExpressJet, with ExpressJet becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of
Atlantic Southeast.  If the Merger is completed as contemplated by
the Merger Agreement, the ExpressJet stockholders will receive
$6.75 in cash for each outstanding share of ExpressJet common
stock, and the net acquisition price for all of the issued and
outstanding shares of ExpressJet common stock (after giving effect
to shares of ExpressJet common stock presently owned by Atlantic
Southeast) would be approximately $133 million.  Completion of the
Merger is subject to approval by ExpressJet's stockholders,
regulatory approvals and other customary closing conditions, and
is currently expected to occur during the fourth quarter of 2010.

Between August 5, 2010, and August 25, 2010, nine substantially
similar putative shareholder class action suits were filed by
individual ExpressJet stockholders in the District Court of Harris
County, Texas, against ExpressJet and its directors.  Many of the
petitions also name the Company, Atlantic Southeast and/or Express
Merger Co. as defendants in the litigation.

The Texas State Actions generally allege that the ExpressJet
director defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the negotiations and approval of the Merger Agreement and
that the SkyWest Defendants aided and abetted such alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties.  The Texas State Actions seek, among
other things, an injunction enjoining the Merger and the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement and rescission
of any transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement which may
be completed.

On August 18, 2010, plaintiff Rayside filed a motion to
consolidate the Texas State Actions into Case No. 2010-48784 in
the first-filed court -- the 189th District Court.  On August 20,
2010, plaintiffs Levine, Tejeda, Doraiswamy and Swanepoel filed a
similar motion in the 189th District Court.  On September 10,
2010, the 189th District Court ordered the consolidation of the
Texas State Actions with and into Case No. 2010-48784, which is
referred to as the Consolidated Texas State Action.

On September 20, 2010, a putative stockholder class action was
commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division.  The complaint filed in the
Texas Federal Action includes substantially identical allegations
to and requests substantially the same relief as the petitions in
the Texas State Actions, but also includes allegations related to
the ExpressJet preliminary proxy statement filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 3, 2010.

On October 8, 2010, counsel for the defendants in the Actions,
counsel for the plaintiff class in the Consolidated Texas State
Action and counsel for plaintiff in the Texas Federal Action
agreed to and executed a memorandum of understanding containing
the terms of an agreement in principle to resolve the Actions.
The MOU provides that, in consideration for the settlement of the
Actions, ExpressJet will make certain disclosures in the
definitive proxy statement to be sent to the ExpressJet
stockholders soliciting approval of the Merger.

In the MOU, the defendants in the Actions acknowledge that they
considered the claims raised by the plaintiffs in the Actions in
connection with the disclosures contemplated by the MOU.  In
exchange, the parties to the MOU have agreed to use their best
efforts to draft and execute a definitive stipulation of
settlement that includes a plaintiff class consisting of all
record and beneficial holders of ExpressJet stock, other than
defendants in the Consolidated Texas State Action and any firm,
trust, corporation or other entity controlled by any such
defendant, during the period beginning on and including Dec. 2,
2009, through and including the date of the consummation of the
merger.

If approved by the parties and the 189th District Court, the
settlement will result in the dismissal with prejudice of the
Consolidated Texas State Action and release by the plaintiff class
of all claims under federal and state law that were or could have
been asserted in the Actions or which arise out of or relate to
the transactions contemplated by the Merger.

The MOU further provides that, in the event the Consolidated Texas
State Action is dismissed in accordance with the settlement
stipulation, the parties to the MOU will use their best efforts to
obtain the dismissal with prejudice of the Texas Federal Action.

The settlement of the Consolidated Texas State Action is subject
to numerous conditions set forth in the MOU and to be contained in
any stipulation of settlement, including the completion of the
Merger, Skywest disclosed in its November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the SEC for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Remains a Defendant in "Harkness" Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself
against a lawsuit filed by its current and former employees,
according to the company's November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

On February 16, 2007, an action entitled Harkness, et al., v. The
Boeing Company, et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas.  The defendants were served in early July
2007.  The defendants include Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc.,
Spirit AeroSystems, Inc., the Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc.
Retirement Plan for the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers (IBEW), Wichita Engineering Unit (SPEEA WEU) and Wichita
Technical and Professional Unit (SPEEA WTPU) Employees, and the
Spirit AeroSystems Retirement Plan for International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) Employees, along with
The Boeing Company and Boeing retirement and health plan entities.

The named plaintiffs are twelve former Boeing employees, eight of
whom were or are employees of Spirit.  The plaintiffs assert
several claims under the Employee Retirement Income and Securities
Act and general contract law and brought the case as a class
action on behalf of similarly situated individuals.  The putative
class consists of approximately 2,500 current or former employees
of Spirit.  The parties agreed to class certification and are
currently in the discovery process.

The sub-class members who have asserted claims against the Spirit
entities are those individuals who, as of June 2005, were employed
by Boeing in Wichita, Kansas, were participants in the Boeing
pension plan, had at least 10 years of vesting service in the
Boeing plan, were in jobs represented by a union, were between the
ages of 49 and 55, and who went to work for Spirit on or about
June 17, 2005.

Although there are many claims in the suit, the plaintiffs' claims
against the Spirit entities, asserted under various theories, are:

   (1) that the Spirit plans wrongfully failed to determine that
       certain plaintiffs are entitled to early retirement
       "bridging rights" to pension and retiree medical benefits
       that were allegedly triggered by their separation from
       employment by Boeing; and

   (2) that the plaintiffs' pension benefits were unlawfully
       transferred from Boeing to Spirit in that their claimed
       early retirement "bridging rights" are not being afforded
       these individuals as a result of their separation from
       Boeing, thereby decreasing their benefits.

The plaintiffs seek a declaration that they are entitled to the
early retirement pension benefits and retiree medical benefits, an
injunction ordering that the defendants provide the benefits,
damages pursuant to breach of contract claims and attorney fees.

Boeing has notified Spirit that it believes it is entitled to
indemnification from Spirit for any "indemnifiable damages" it may
incur in the Harkness litigation, under the terms of the asset
purchase agreement from the Boeing Acquisition.  Spirit disputes
Boeing's position on indemnity.  Management believes the
resolution of this matter will not materially affect the Company's
financial position, results of operations or liquidity.


SUPPORT.COM: Appeal on Settlement of IPO Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Support.com, Inc., said in a Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 3, 2010, that an appeal on the settlement
of a securities class action remains pending.

In November 2001, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company, two of its former officers and certain underwriters in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. Similar complaints have been filed against 55 underwriters
and more than 300 other companies and other individual officers
and directors of those companies; the consolidated case is In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)
(S.D.N.Y.). The lawsuit, which sought unspecified damages, fees
and costs, alleged that the company's registration statement and
prospectus dated July 18, 2000, for the issuance and initial
public offering of 4,250,000 shares of its common stock contained
material misrepresentations and omissions related to alleged
inflated commissions received by the underwriters of the offering.

On April 1, 2009, all parties entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement that would resolve all claims and dismiss
the case against the company and its former officers, without any
payment by the company or its former officers. On October 5, 2009,
the court issued an order approving the settlement. Certain other
parties have appealed the settlement and the appeal is pending.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Anticipates Amended Complaint on Sec. 1031 Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks Inc. awaits the possible filing of an amended
complaint over its involvement in certain Section 1031 transaction
exchanges.

Two putative class action lawsuits have been filed against the
Company by former customers of LandAmerica 1031 Exchange Services,
Inc., a subsidiary of LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc.:

   1. The first of these actions, Arthur et al. v. SunTrust Banks,
      Inc., et al., was filed on January 14, 2009 in the U.S.
      District Court for the Southern District of California.

   2. The second of these cases, Terry et al. v. SunTrust Banks,
      Inc., et al., was filed on February 2, 2009 in the Court of
      Common Pleas, Tenth Judicial Circuit, County of Anderson,
      South Carolina, and subsequently removed to the U.S.
      District Court for the District of South Carolina.

On June 12, 2009, the Multi-District Litigation Panel issued a
transfer order designating the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina, Anderson Division, as MDL Court for
IRS Section 1031 Tax Deferred Exchange Litigation (MDL 2054).

The Plaintiffs allege that LES and certain of its officers caused
them to suffer damages in connection with potential 1031 exchange
transactions that were pending at the time that LES filed for
bankruptcy.  Essentially, the Plaintiffs' core allegation is that
their damages are the result of breaches of fiduciary and other
duties owed to them by LES and others, and fraud and other
improper acts committed by LES and certain of its officers, and
that SunTrust Bank is partially or entirely responsible for those
damages because it knew or should have known about the alleged
wrongdoing and failed to take appropriate steps to stop the same.

The Company believes that the allegations and claims made against
it in these actions are both factually and legally unsupported,
and has filed a motion to dismiss all claims.

The Court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to re-plead.

The Company anticipates that another amended complaint will be
filed, according to its November 5, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

In addition, the Company reveals in the SEC filing that it has
been made aware that the bankruptcy trustee representing the
estates of LFG and LES currently is investigating whether to bring
claims against SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., and other
entities related to the purchase of "Auction Rate Securities by
LES through STRH.  The total par amount of ARS bought through STRH
and held by LES at the time of the collapse of the auction rate
market in February 2008 was approximately $152 million.  At this
time, no legal action has been filed by the trustee.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend 2 Suits Over Overdraft Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks continues to defend itself against two putative
class action lawsuits relating to its imposition of overdraft fees
on customer accounts, the Company disclosed in its November 5,
2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The first case, Buffington et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al.,
was filed in Fulton County Superior Court on May 6, 2009.  The
action was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Atlanta Division on June 10, 2009, and was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida for inclusion in Multi-District Litigation Case No.
2036 on December 1, 2009.

The Buffington Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract,
conversion, unconscionability, and unjust enrichment for alleged
injuries they suffered as a result of the method of posting order
used by the Company, which allegedly resulted in overdraft fees
being assessed to their joint checking account, and purport to
bring their action on behalf of a putative class of "all SunTrust
Bank account holders who incurred an overdraft charge despite
their account having a sufficient balance of actual funds to cover
all debits that have been submitted to the bank for payment," as
well as "all SunTrust account holders who incurred one or more
overdraft charges based on SunTrust Bank's reordering of charges."

The Buffington Plaintiffs seek restitution, damages, expenses of
litigation, attorneys' fees, and other relief deemed equitable by
the Court.

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Compel
Arbitration and both motions were denied.  The denial of the
Motion to Compel Arbitration currently is on appeal to the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The second of these cases, Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank, was filed
in the Fulton County State Court on July 12, 2010, and an amended
complaint was filed on August 9, 2010.

Bickerstaff asserts that all overdraft fees charged to his account
which related to debit card and ATM transactions are actually
interest charges and therefore subject to the usury laws of
Georgia.  Bickerstaff has brought claims for violations of civil
and criminal usury, conversion and money had and received and
purports to bring the action on behalf of all Georgia citizens who
have incurred those overdraft fees within the last four years
where the overdraft fee resulted in an interest rate being charged
in excess of the usury rate.

SunTrust has filed a motion to compel arbitration and that motion
is pending.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Court Dismisses Investment Claims in ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain claims related to the investment of participants in the
SunTrust Banks, Inc., 401(k) Plan have been dismissed, the Company
noted in its November 5, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

The complaint against the Company is a consolidated putative class
action case filed by participants in the SunTrust 401(k) Plan
concerning the performance of certain investment options available
under the Plan.  In particular, the consolidated complaint alleges
that the Company's publicly traded stock was an imprudent
investment option that should not have been offered by the Plan
because of the Company's alleged exposure to losses related to
subprime mortgages.

The complaint names the Company, members of the Company's Board of
Directors, the Company's Benefits Plan Committee, and other
members of the Company's management as defendants, and contends
that these defendants breached their fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, by
offering the Company's common stock as an investment option in the
Plan.  The complaint does not quantify the alleged damages that
the plaintiffs seek.

On December 10, 2009, the Company and the other defendants moved
to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.  The case is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Atlanta Division.

On October 26, 2010, the Court granted the Defendants a partial
motion to dismiss regarding the plaintiffs' investment claims but
denied their motion to dismiss regarding disclosure claims.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Court Stays "Krinsk" Suit Pending Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
A lender liability action, Krinsk v. SunTrust Banks Inc., is
currently stayed pending the resolution of an appeal asserted in
the case, the Company disclosed in its November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The action asserts claims that the Company has taken actions in
violation of Ms. Krinsk's home equity line of credit agreement and
in violation of the Truth in Lending Act.  The Plaintiff filed the
action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida as a putative class action, and is currently attempting to
have the class certified.

The Court dismissed portions of Plaintiff's first complaint.

Ms. Krinsk subsequently filed an amended complaint, asserting
breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, and violation of TILA.  The Plaintiff has filed a
motion for class certification.

The Company filed its answer to the complaint, has opposed class
certification, and has filed a motion to compel arbitration.

The Court denied the motion to compel arbitration and that
decision is on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
The case has been stayed pending the resolution of that appeal.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Faces Amended Complaint in Belmont Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Belmont Holdings Corp., as lead plaintiff in a securities suit
against SunTrust Banks, Inc., has amended it class action
complaint to address some deficiencies in the original complaint
cited by the court.

The disclosure was made in SunTrust Banks' November 5, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In May 2009, the Company, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc.,
SunTrust Capital IX and officers and directors of the Company and
others were named in three putative class actions arising out of
the offer and sale of approximately $690 million of SunTrust
Capital IX 7.875% Trust Preferred Securities (TRUPs) of SunTrust
Banks, Inc.

The complaints alleged, among other things, that the relevant
registration statement and accompanying prospectus misrepresented
or omitted material facts regarding the Company' allowance for
loan and lease loss reserves, the Company' capital position and
its internal risk controls.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover alleged losses in connection with
their investment in the TRUPs or to rescind their purchases of the
TRUPs.

The cases were consolidated under the caption Belmont Holdings
Corp., et al., v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division, and on November 30, 2009, a consolidated amended
complaint was filed.

On January 29, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  The motion was granted, with
leave to amend, on September 10, 2010.

On October 8, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
in an attempt to address the pleading deficiencies identified in
the Court's dismissal decision.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Court Dismisses WaterFord Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Georgia court has refused to grant class certification and
dismissed a securities class action complaint brought by the
Waterford Township against SunTrust Banks, Inc., the Company
disclosed in a November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

The Company and several of its executive officers are named as
defendants in putative class action securities litigation pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Atlanta Division.

The cases were consolidated under the caption, Waterford Township
General Employees Retirement System v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al.
As lead plaintiff, the Waterford Township General Employees
Retirement System filed the Lead Plaintiff's First Amended Class
Action Complaint on December 23, 2009.

The plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of a class of persons and
entities that purchased or acquired the Company's stock during the
period July 22, 2008 through January 21, 2009, and allege that the
defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to understate the
Company's allowance for loan and lease loss or "ALLL" reserves;
its provision for loan losses; and the amount of charge-offs
related to its loans.  They further allege that the defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding, among
other things, the ALLL, its provision for loan losses, and the
amount of charge-offs related to its loans.

Waterford seeks certification of the class and an unspecified
amount of compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees.

The Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint was filed
in February 2010.  The Court granted the motion on August 19, 2010
and no appeal was filed prior to the deadline for doing so.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Seeks Reconsideration to Dismiss Colonial Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks Inc's affiliates, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey Inc.
continues to be implicated in a securities litigation against
Colonial BancGroup, Inc., the Company noted in its November 5,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In July 2009, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., certain other
underwriters, The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. and certain officers
and directors of Colonial BancGroup were named as defendants in a
putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Alabama, Northern District entitled In re
Colonial BancGroup, Inc. Securities Litigation.

The complaint was brought by purchasers of certain debt and equity
securities of Colonial BancGroup and seeks unspecified damages.

The Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and misleading
disclosures in the relevant registration statement and prospectus
relating to Colonial's goodwill impairment, mortgage underwriting
standards and credit quality.

On August 28, 2009, The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. filed for
bankruptcy.

The Defendants' motion to dismiss was denied in May 2010.  Shortly
after entering this order, the judge assigned to the case recused
himself.

The Defendants have filed a motion for reconsideration with
respect to the motion to dismiss.


TECO ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Gas Explosion
--------------------------------------------------
Aisling Swift, writing for Marco Eagle, reports a North Naples
pizzeria filed a class-action lawsuit on Wednesday against TECO
Peoples Gas and Posen Construction, alleging their negligence
caused a gas explosion that forced many businesses to shut down
this month.

Lucarelli's Pizza & Deli, which is located at the Galleria on
Vanderbilt Beach Road, filed the lawsuit in Lee County Circuit
Court against Tampa-based TECO Energy System Inc., Peoples Gas
System Inc. of Florida, and Posen Construction Inc. of Estero.

The lawsuit, which appears to be the first involving the
explosion, was filed on behalf of Collier and Lee county
businesses that lost money due to a Nov. 11 gas line explosion
that occurred during the widening of Colonial Parkway in Fort
Myers.

"They shut down much of their operations and lost a great deal of
their income, as did most of the commercial establishments that
are included within our class," said Naples attorney Mike
McDonnell, who is co-counsel in the lawsuit with Gary L. Green.

"They're dragging their heels," Mr. McDonnell said of an
investigation by TECO Peoples Gas.  "These people need their
money."

If a circuit judge certifies the lawsuit as a class-action claim,
all other Lee and Collier businesses whose gas service was
interrupted will receive formal notification of their inclusion in
the class.  That would enable them to participate as plaintiffs to
recover their economic losses.

Jack Lucarelli, 40, who owns the 27-year-old pizzeria with his
wife Donna and aunt, Cathy, said gas went out about 6:30 p.m.
Nov. 11 and didn't return until late afternoon Nov. 16.

"We tried to open with propane and barbecue grills," Mr. Lucarelli
said.  "We had a band scheduled for Friday night and we tried to
make it work with propane and a limited menu, but it didn't work."

Of two parties scheduled for that Saturday, he had to cancel one
and charge the other group less due to a limited menu.  That
Sunday, he said, TECO officials said they'd have gas restored by
Monday morning, so he called his regular crew in.  But there was
no gas.

"Then five trucks came by at 9:30 and they said, 'We'll have you
on within a half-hour.'  I had guys waiting there all day, but we
never heard from them again," he added.  "The same thing happened
the next day.  It was just crazy."

Finally, he said, gas was restored in the late afternoon that
Tuesday.

"We suffered even after that because people just assumed we were
closed," Mr. Lucarelli said, adding that some did call.  "For the
most part, we were slow for the following week."

He estimated he lost at least $15,000, but won't know for sure
until his accountant compares that period with past weeks and last
year.

Most businesses had no gas for about three days, while some
improvised by bringing in gas grills, cooking outside and changing
their menus.  Within a week, nearly all businesses had been
restored, but by that time, many had lost thousands in income and
profits.  Some contacted their business-interruption insurers, but
were told they weren't covered because it wasn't caused by an
onsite incident.

The lawsuit alleges TECO and Peoples Gas System negligently failed
to adequately mark and protect the gas line during the
construction project and that Posen was negligent because it was
warned not to dig until the lines were remarked.

"On Monday, Nov. 8, 2010, a TECO inspector noticed that the gas
line markers were missing and told Posen that TECO would return to
the construction site on Friday . . . to replace the missing
markers," the eight-page complaint says, accusing TECO of not
promptly replacing the markers.  "Posen nonetheless continued to
dig without the markers in place and the rupture and explosion
occurred on Thursday . . ."

Mario Santos, 26, of Bonita Springs, a Posen employee, was
operating the bulldozer that hit the 8-inch natural gas line,
causing a major break in the Southwest Florida system that
resulted in a loss of natural gas service to about 6,000
residential and 1,200 commercial customers in Lee and Collier
counties.

Mr. Santos remains in critical condition in Tampa General
Hospital's Regional Burn Center.

The lawsuit contends businesses lost revenue because they were
unable to use gas appliances for food preparation or other
services, resulting in the "elimination or significant reduction
of customers" and forcing them to incur other expenses to
compensate for the loss of gas.

TECO officials claim the test stations and line markings
identifying the gas pipe were destroyed during the widening
project and blame Posen for continuing work despite warnings.

Posen Human Resources Director Rick Cook referred calls today to
its attorney, Kevin Crews of Wicker, Smith, O'Hara, McCoy & Ford
in Naples, who said, "At this time, we have no comment."

TECO spokesman Rick Morera couldn't be reached, but Peoples Gas
President Gordon Gillette said last week that it's investigating
and it was unclear whether TECO will pay any claims.  If the
accident is determined to be out of its control, he said, it won't
be responsible for paying customer losses.


UNITED PARCEL: Settles "Hohider" Class Action
---------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc., has settled a class action lawsuit
entitled, Hohider v. UPS, the company said in a Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commissio on November 5, 2010.

In Hohider v. UPS, which in July 2007 was certified as a class
action in a Pennsylvania federal court, plaintiffs have challenged
certain aspects of the Company's interactive process for assessing
requests for reasonable accommodation under the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of over
35,000 current and former employees, and seek back-pay, and
compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorneys' fees.

In August 2007, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals granted the
Company's petition to hear the appeal of the trial court's
certification order. In July 2009, the Third Circuit issued its
decision decertifying the class and remanding the case to the
trial court for further proceedings.

In August 2010, the Company reached a settlement with the
plaintiffs and the case was dismissed. The Company said the
settlement had no material adverse effect on its financial
condition, results of operations, or liquidity.


UNITED PARCEL: Barber Auto Sales Suit Still Pending in Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc., said in a Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 5, 2010, that continues to defend
itself against a class action lawsuit in Alabama filed by Barber
Auto Sales.

In Barber Auto Sales v. UPS, which a federal court in Alabama
certified as a class action in September 2009, the plaintiff
asserts a breach of contract claim arising from UPS's assessment
of shipping charge corrections when UPS determines that the
"dimensional weight" of packages is greater than reported by the
shipper.

The Company has denied any liability with respect to these claims
and intend to vigorously defend itself in this case. At this time,
the Company has not determined the amount of any liability that
may result from this matter or whether such liability, if any,
would have a material adverse effect on its financial condition,
results of operations, or liquidity.


UNITED PARCEL: Price-Fixing Suit Remains Pending in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc., said in a Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 5, 2010, that a class action
alleging price-fixing activities remains pending.

In January 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleging price-fixing activities relating to the provision of
freight forwarding services. UPS was not named in this case. On
July 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint
naming numerous global freight forwarders as defendants. UPS and
UPS Supply Chain Solutions are among the 60 defendants named in
the amended complaint.

The Company said it intends to vigorously defend itself in this
case. At this time, the Company has not determined the amount of
any liability that may result from these matters or whether such
liability, if any, would have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity.


WAL-MART STORES: High Court Class Action Decision Expected Today
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brent Kendall, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that the
U.S. Supreme Court could announce as early as Monday, November 29,
whether it will hear Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s challenge to a major
class-action lawsuit alleging the retailing giant discriminated
against female employees.

The case has loomed over the court's business docket since the
company filed its Supreme Court petition in August.

The lawsuit, which would be one of the biggest class actions in
history, dates back to 2001, when a group of women alleged
Wal-Mart paid female employees significantly less than their male
counterparts and offered them fewer opportunities for advancement.

The plaintiffs, representing current and former employees, said
Wal-Mart's policies on pay and promotions adversely affected
female workers in stores throughout the nation.

The case involves claims that could amount to billions of dollars.

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, oral arguments could
take place next spring, with a decision by July.

If the court rejects Wal-Mart's petition, the lawsuit will move
forward as a class action, which allows plaintiffs to pool their
individual claims into one big case.

It's also possible the court could ask the Obama administration
for its views on the case, which could postpone matters for
several months.

Wal-Mart, which says its policies are non-discriminatory, argues
the case should not be granted class-action status because the
plaintiffs' claims are too varied to proceed together, making it
difficult for the retailer to mount a defense.  The company also
says the trial judge erroneously granted the lawsuit class status
under a legal provision that is not designed to allow class-
actions that primarily seek monetary relief.

The plaintiffs are seeking back pay, punitive damages and changes
to how Wal-Mart makes its pay and promotion decisions.  They
concede their class action is a large one, but say that's to be
expected because Wal-Mart is the nation's largest corporate
employer.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
6-5 to allow the lawsuit to proceed as a class action.  The
decision, however, narrowed the lawsuit somewhat . The appeals
court said women who no longer worked for Wal-Mart when the
original suit was filed in 2001 should not be considered part of
the class, but it left open the possibility that those plaintiffs
could proceed separately.

The court also said a trial judge acted prematurely by allowing
the class action to proceed on the issue of punitive damages.

Wal-Mart's challenge to the appeals-court ruling was scheduled for
consideration at the Supreme Court's private conference last week.
The court could announce as soon as today whether it will consider
the case or leave the lower-court ruling in place.

The retailer's high-court petition is being supported by an array
of corporations, including Bank of America Corp. (BAC), General
Electric Co. (GE) and Microsoft Corp. (MSFT).  They say the lower-
court ruling threatens to expose companies to staggering liability
by allowing unrelated discrimination claims to proceed as class
actions.

The case is Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, 10-277.


WELLS FARGO: To Seek Appeal of Court Ruling on "Gutierrez" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company will take an appeal from a California
court's final judgment in a class action lawsuit captioned
Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., according to the Company's
November 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

A series of putative class actions have been filed against
Wachovia Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as well as many
other banks, challenging the high to low order in which the Banks
post debit card transactions to consumer deposit accounts.

There are currently 12 such cases pending against Wells Fargo Bank
(including the Wachovia Bank cases to which Wells Fargo
succeeded), all but three of which have been consolidated in
multi-district litigation proceedings in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.

On August 10, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California issued an order in Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., one of the three cases that were not consolidated in
the multi-district proceedings, enjoining the Bank's use of the
high to low posting method for debit card transactions with
respect to the plaintiff class of California depositors, directing
that the Bank establish a different posting methodology and
ordering remediation in the approximate amount of $203 million.

On October 26, 2010, a final judgment was entered in Gutierrez.
Wells Fargo says it will appeal.


WELLS FARGO: Deed Back Property Taken Unlawfully, Says Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
David L. Washington, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., Case No.
2010-CH-49776 (Ill. Super. Ct., Cook Cty. November 19, 2010),
seeks judgment requiring the Defendants who have used improper
foreclosure procedures to cause the property taken from class
members to be deeded back to Plaintiff and other class members.

Mr. Washington alleges that a plan to change and simplify
the procedure for serving process in Cook County foreclosure
actions was presented by "major lenders, loan servicers and
holders of mortgage liens such as the Defendants" to the presiding
judge of the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook
County, who issued an Administrative Order changing the service
procedure solely for Cook County foreclosure cases, which occurred
on June 22, 2007.  According to Mr. Washington, that plan failed
to respect the constitutionally required separation of powers
between the Illinois legislature and the Illinois judiciary.  The
suit alleges that the Administrative Order entered by the
presiding judge "exceeded her authority and constituted
unconstitutional overreach."  Mr. Washington contends any change
to the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure -- which governs the
procedure for serving process in all foreclosure actions -- could
only be effected by action of the Illinois legislature.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward T. Joyce, Esq.
          Arthur W. Aufmann, Esq.
          Kenneth D. Flaxman, Esq.
          EDWARD T. JOYCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          135 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 641-2600

               - and -

          Constantine P. Xinos, Esq.
          XINOS AND XINOS, LTD.
          134 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 444
          Chicago, IL 60602-1049
          Telephone: (312) 263-6167


* Dodd-Frank Act May Spur Foreign Securities Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark E. Ruquet, writing for Property & Casualty, reports The Dodd-
Frank Act has reopened the door to U.S. regulatory action against
some foreign entities after a recent Supreme Court decision had
limited the reach of the U.S. legal system, according to experts.

The new reality gives directors and officers one more reason to
ensure they have adequate professional liability coverage, the
experts said during a webinar sponsored by the London-
headquartered insurance broker Willis and the international law
firm Proskauer, titled "Emerging Executive Risk Exposures for
International Firms; Picking the Deep Pockets."

"Believe it or not, it has been nearly five decades, nearly half a
century, since the class action has become the chosen tool through
which plaintiffs seek recovery of claims violations for the
federal securities laws," noted Richard L. Spinogatti, senior
counsel in Proskauer's Litigation Department.

He went on to say that while the character and abilities of the
attorneys who have built their careers on this system vary widely,
they are all driven by the same thing: money.  He added, "They are
also very creative and adaptive."

Two Supreme Court decisions, Morrison v. National Australia Bank
Ltd. in 2010 and Stoneridge Investment Partners LLC v. Scientific-
Atlanta Inc. in 2008, made the deep pocket litigation more
difficult, Mr. Spinogatti explained.  However, the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act has impacted some
provisions of the court's decisions.

The Stoneridge decision limits the amount of liability plaintiffs
can claim to collect, primarily with respect to requests for legal
fees from defendants, Mr. Sinogatti said.

Under the Morrison decision, Mr. Spinogatti explained, if a
financial investment transaction occurred outside of the United
States, then there was no right of private legal action against
the entity in a U.S. Court.

However, Dodd-Frank now gives the Securities and Exchange
Commission the authority to pursue directors and officers who it
believes have violated securities laws.

Meanwhile, the legal community has not been sitting on its hands
because of Stoneridge and Morrison either, Mr. Spinogatti
explained.  Attorneys in the United States have forged
relationships with attorneys in foreign countries to pursue
securities claims there.

He noted that the while not all nations allow class action
litigation, attorneys are finding ways to bring claims, especially
in nations where no judicial precedent exists, and they attempt to
"push the envelope" in developing cases.

Insurers have not been idle, said Marc Eric Rosenthal, partner at
Proskauer.  They have developed policies that, though expensive,
deal with D&O issues at the earliest stages of the litigation
process, including the discovery stages.

He advised buyers of D&O coverage to review and negotiate
coverages that will protect their interests overseas and offer
sufficient limits outside of the United States.

Ann M. Longmore, executive vice president for Willis North
America, emphasized the importance of having adequate, local D&O
coverage, noting that while securities violations remain a civil
issue in the United States, elsewhere it is a criminal violation.

Targets of such investigations can find themselves in handcuffs
being whisked away to jail and discovering that "the fifth
amendment doesn't apply" in other countries.

She emphasized the need for brokers to design policies locally.
While a policy might be written in the United States and
explicitly state it covers corporate officials on a global basis,
locally the policy may not be recognized.  Individual nations may
require policies be written on an admitted basis, she said.

Locally written policies can also more quickly avoid currency
regulations, because payments are not coming from overseas, and
the local policies can answer local tax issues that a foreign
policy would probably not deal with.

"The good news is that insurers have been dealing with insurance
issues overseas for years," said Ms. Longmore.  "You just have to
understand what needs to be done."


                             *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Leah
Felisilda, Rousel Elaine Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Ronald Sy,
Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman,
Editors.

Copyright 2010.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *